Here's an analysis of the Genesis account of creation. I'll use the King James bible.
Chapter 1.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the Earth and Heaven were created at the same time and before the stars. Hmm..that seems to contradict all current understanding of cosmology.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This seems to say that the earth was full of water and yet 'void'. Given that a void is empty this seems self-contradictory
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
From where does the light come?
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Presumably this means he sets the earth spinning on its axis.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So a day is measured from evening to morning? Hmm.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
So there is a 'sky' or 'heavens' in the middle of a lot of water?
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
So now we have water under the sky and water above it. Hmm.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Ahh...so now the firmament is heaven...but surely heaven was created 'in the beginning'?
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
So we have one ocean and one island? OK...that works.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
OK, this works...we now have land and sea.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
So the first life on earth is grass and trees? This seems to contradict everything we know about the appearance of life (the first life was primitive bacteria which appeared in the oceans about 4 billion yrs ago).
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Nope - grasses did not appear until about 65 million years ago (well over 4 billion years after the earth was formed). Trees evolved during the Devonian period (about 350 million years ago).
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Again this definition of a day as evening and morning. What happened to the afternoon?
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Hang on - I thought light appeared on day 1? We are now in day 4. What's going on?
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Hmm...very odd indeed. Is this the creation of stars? Surely the Sun is a star?
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Ahh so this is the Sun and the Moon. But the moon is not a light - it merely reflects the light from the Sun. The seasons are determined by the Sun and the Earth's rotation/orbit but if we are only now seeing the Sun appear then how did the grasses and trees appear (since they rely on photosynthesis) ?
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Hmm...I wonder...
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Good? It's a ruddy miracle...
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Again with this aversion for afternoons...did God have a bad experience one afternoon?
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
So we now get sea-life and birds?
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Yep - sea life and birds all apear at once (including sea mammals). This contradicts everything we know about the appearance of life on earth...
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
So we have creatures in the oceans and birds on the land.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Come on God...get over this afternoon problem.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
So now we get mammals and insects?
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Yep - mammals and insects now appear. Again this contradicts everything we know about the appearance of life on earth. The earliest insect fossils we have are around 400 million years old. The earliest mammals appeared around 220 million years ago. Cattle appeared much later down the line.
26 And 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 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So mankind is now to appear?
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Hang on - I thought Eve was the first woman created from Adam's rib - but surely that is later in Genesis 2? Hmm...
Now compare this with what we actually know about the evolution of life on earth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html Contrary to popular opinion and today’s science, God created all the laws of nature and Science when He created this whole universe, today science is still trying to unravel these mysteries.
The bible said the earth was round before science even though it true, just ask Galileo?
The hydrological cycle was described in great detail in the book of Job (one of the old books of the bible); thousands of years before science even consider it possible. And so forth, even today modern science has recognized the benefits of the Jewish customs and law from the Torah as been both hygienic and very healthy.
The bible is full of explanations of things that God revealed to people, even Dinosaurs are describe in great detail in the bible (see the book of Job), about science and nature which scientist only recently have confirmed as true and if something does not make sense or contradicts science in the bible, it is not the bible that is wrong but science.
As for the theory of Evolution, it has more holes in it than a sift, for example if things progressed form net or sift, for example if things progressed from nothing to a cell to a whatever, how do you explain the eye or stomach, it either was created whole from the beginning or not.
Have a great day, which God made, and breath the fresh He also made, enjoy some water and food which are His gifts to us and just know that He is God.
| xtupie wrote: |
| The bible said the earth was round before science even though it true, just ask Galileo? |
We can't do that because he is dead. We can read the bible though.
Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.
Does a circle have corners?
What about:
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
How can you see the entire world from a mountain if it is a sphere..doesn't work does it?
I presume you are referring to:
Issaiah 40;22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
But that implies a flat circle, not a sphere.
In fact the ancient Greeks were well aware that the Earth was a sphere - they knew this about 6 centuries BCE (Pythagoras) and didn't have to rely on any bible..
| xtupie wrote: |
| The hydrological cycle was described in great detail in the book of Job (one of the old books of the bible); thousands of years before science even consider it possible. And so forth, even today modern science has recognized the benefits of the Jewish customs and law from the Torah as been both hygienic and very healthy. |
I presume you mean
Job 36;27-28 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.
I would hardly call that great detail - in fact it's wrong since it implies that God makes the rain in the clouds when in fact this is a result of evaporation (mainly from the oceans).
We also have:
Ecc 1:7:All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
How does that work then? | xtupie wrote: |
| The bible is full of explanations of things that God revealed to people, even Dinosaurs are describe in great detail in the bible (see the book of Job), |
I presume you mean the description of the Behemoth in
Job 40;15-16 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Could equally well be desribing an elephant or hippopotamus. | xtupie wrote: |
| if something does not make sense or contradicts science in the bible, it is not the bible that is wrong but science. |
Where we actually have evidence for something then it must be wrong if it isn't in the bible - obviously! ROFLMAO | xtupie wrote: |
| As for the theory of Evolution, it has more holes in it than a sift, for example if things progressed form net or sift, for example if things progressed from nothing to a cell to a whatever, how do you explain the eye or stomach, it either was created whole from the beginning or not. |
You really should read more up to date creationist propoganda. The 'eye' has been done to death and even creationists like Behe and Dembski have stopped using that example.
Here - watch a video and learn.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
As for the stomach, it's still evolving (like everything else). Look, for example, at the evolution of lactose tolerance in humans...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/human-evolution/dn11261-early-europeans-unable-to-stomach-milk.html
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue May 06, 2008 6:17 pm; edited 1 time in totalA do admire the optimism and tenacity in this as well as the sister post. Regrettably though, I am convinced that combatting irrational and illogical beliefs with logic, scientific method and plain common sense will, as usual, not work. Logical arguments, chains of proof and scientific fact do not leave a dent with those whose beliefs do not rely on any of these. It's Don Quixote shattering his skull in the futile attempt to attack the windmills (even if in this case, Don Quixote is the sane, rational one). Very good luck to you all the same. You will, as usual in these types of discussions, corner them in the "God moves in mysterious ways." corner ... a TKO for those who agreed with you from the beginning and an "undecided" for the others.
Yes, I know what you are saying Max. I normally leave the 'plain religious' postings alone but when they make references to science then I just can't sit back and let it pass.
I don't expect to make any 'converts' but you never know 
This topic is pointless, and if the earth were a circle instead of a sphere we'd still be able to fall off, e.g. the bird in my avatar... | Bikerman wrote: |
| Does a circle have corners? |
Nice job. | Quote: |
| Quran [79:30] He made the earth egg-shaped. |
? | Quote: |
| Quran [79:30] He made the earth egg-shaped. |
So the Quran is wrong as well.
Firstly you are taking a rather selective translation of the Sura.
It actually says Wal'arda ba'da dhalika dahaha which has been traditionally interpreted as 'and afterwards he spread the earth'. The translation to mean 'egg shaped' is a relatively recent one made by Khalifa who many Muslims regard with suspicion.
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/79/30/default.htm
However, even if we accept this dodgy 'new' translation from Khalifa, then it is still wrong. The egg is a prolate spheroid (more or less). The earth is very close to a sphere but if you want to be technical it is an oblate spheroid (nothing like 'egg-shaped').The word dahaha is derived from dahhyah which means "egg."
At that time, people did not fully understand the meaning of this verse. Well, imagine trying to tell nomads 1400 years ago that you are not on the North Pole but on the SIDE of the Earth, and that people are standing on the other end! And an invisible force called gravity pulls things towards it which lets us stand on it, even on the side!
To us, true. To them, outrageous.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| The word dahaha is derived from dahhyah which means "egg." |
Actually it means 'Ostrich Egg spread in the sand' - which is why most respectable Muslim scholars translate the Sura as 'spreading the Earth'. Why not check the reference I gave (it is on a pro-Islamic website and contains all the possible translations, and you can also check-out the translators since it has a brief biography for each).Chris,
I liked reading your post even where I think we totally disagree (I am a christian so even if I can't prove anything at all in Genesis is right I still believe it. Maybe you could compare it to someone who always believes his favourite footballclub will win in the end even if they have lost match after match 
It's not believing because it's provable, it's believing just out of love). I can't react on all that you are writing but I will try to react on some of your analyses.
Note: one could write a book about Genesis 1. In fact, there are written lots of books on Genesis 1. So my reaction will be far from complete.
| Quote: |
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the Earth and Heaven were created at the same time and before the stars. Hmm..that seems to contradict all current understanding of cosmology. |
Genesis 1 starts with a short summary of what is to come: everything that exists is created by God. You could say it's like the title of a capital.
Heaven: the place where God lives, His house. Confusing: heaven can also mean 'sky', the place where the clouds are. But here it is used as the opposite of the earth. Earth is the home of humankind, heaven the home of God.
| Quote: |
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This seems to say that the earth was full of water and yet 'void'. Given that a void is empty this seems self-contradictory |
You are right, it seems self-contradictory. But it's a poem. The earth is empty, there is nothing except water. Darkness, chaos. There was water, but the main function of the earth, being a home to all the living beings, was still impossible. Without light and without dry land life is very difficult. So void means: it was unusable, worthless as long as there was only water.
| Quote: |
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
From where does the light come? |
I don't know, guess God created it by saing so
But seriously, it's the description of how God created everything, the whole universe, just out of nothing. So the question where 'it came from' will always lead to the answer: from nowhere, because there was (almost) nothing, beside of God.
| Quote: |
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Presumably this means he sets the earth spinning on its axis. |
Could be. I think it has something to do with God putting everthing in its proper place, but I can't prove that. You could be right.
| Quote: |
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So a day is measured from evening to morning? Hmm. |
King James isn't very clear in this one. The hebrew original says: 'There was evening - there was morning - first day'. (I don't know if you can read Hebrew. If you like to see the hebrew text with English words look at the blueletterbible.com and click on the little 'C'-icon at the left of the text). This is mostly regarded as: 'There had been an evening and now the next morning had come, the first day had ended.' (Jews count days from sunrise till sunset, so the night is not counted as part of the day)
| Quote: |
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
So there is a 'sky' or 'heavens' in the middle of a lot of water?
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
So now we have water under the sky and water above it. Hmm. |
I think this is the same as with the light-issue: a description of God giving everything it's place. So at first there was earth, but everywhere there was water. And now God takes some of this water and moulds it into clouds (the waters ' above' or ' in' the sky. A lot of people look at the clouds and say: 'those are in the sky') and He takes the rest of the water and makes that into a calm ocean.
I hope I have understand your questions the right way. I hope you enjoy my answer (I don't think you will fully agree with it 
but hey, than we have something to talk about, don't we?). I'm sorry I didn't write a comment to your whole Genesis-analyses, but I simply don't have time enough for that. Have to sleep now.
Yours,
JohanFH | johanfh wrote: |
| Quote: | 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the Earth and Heaven were created at the same time and before the stars. Hmm..that seems to contradict all current understanding of cosmology. |
Genesis 1 starts with a short summary of what is to come: everything that exists is created by God. You could say it's like the title of a capital.
Heaven: the place where God lives, His house. Confusing: heaven can also mean 'sky', the place where the clouds are. But here it is used as the opposite of the earth. Earth is the home of humankind, heaven the home of God. |
OK so we have heaven and earth (no stars, sun, planets etc)..I understand. It doesn't really work though, does it? The Sun clearly came before the Earth...
| Quote: |
| Quote: | 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This seems to say that the earth was full of water and yet 'void'. Given that a void is empty this seems self-contradictory |
You are right, it seems self-contradictory. But it's a poem. The earth is empty, there is nothing except water. Darkness, chaos. There was water, but the main function of the earth, being a home to all the living beings, was still impossible. Without light and without dry land life is very difficult. So void means: it was unusable, worthless as long as there was only water. |
So the earth was covered in water? OK. Again this is contradicted by theory - in fact it is the opposite to current theory since we think the earth had little or no water at formation (it was, for one thing, too hot).
| Quote: |
| Quote: | 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
From where does the light come? |
I don't know, guess God created it by saing so
But seriously, it's the description of how God created everything, the whole universe, just out of nothing. So the question where 'it came from' will always lead to the answer: from nowhere, because there was (almost) nothing, beside of God. |
So this means there was some light other than the sun and stars? Does this light get turned-off later when the sun pops up? | Quote: |
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. | Quote: | 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So a day is measured from evening to morning? Hmm. |
King James isn't very clear in this one. The hebrew original says: 'There was evening - there was morning - first day'. (I don't know if you can read Hebrew. If you like to see the hebrew text with English words look at the blueletterbible.com and click on the little 'C'-icon at the left of the text). This is mostly regarded as: 'There had been an evening and now the next morning had come, the first day had ended.' (Jews count days from sunrise till sunset, so the night is not counted as part of the day) |
No I can't read Hebrew but the afternoon seems to get left out consistently. This could be a semantic/translation issue, I grant. | Quote: |
| Quote: | 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
So there is a 'sky' or 'heavens' in the middle of a lot of water?
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
So now we have water under the sky and water above it. Hmm. |
I think this is the same as with the light-issue: a description of God giving everything it's place. So at first there was earth, but everywhere there was water. And now God takes some of this water and moulds it into clouds (the waters ' above' or ' in' the sky. A lot of people look at the clouds and say: 'those are in the sky') and He takes the rest of the water and makes that into a calm ocean. |
Hmm...the volumes don't add-up - there would be a lot of left-over water. I presume, being God, he could just 'vanish' it?
I enjoyed your response and I hope I took it in the spirit intended | Bikerman wrote: |
| johanfh wrote: | | Quote: | 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the Earth and Heaven were created at the same time and before the stars. Hmm..that seems to contradict all current understanding of cosmology. |
Genesis 1 starts with a short summary of what is to come: everything that exists is created by God. You could say it's like the title of a capital.
Heaven: the place where God lives, His house. Confusing: heaven can also mean 'sky', the place where the clouds are. But here it is used as the opposite of the earth. Earth is the home of humankind, heaven the home of God. |
OK so we have heaven and earth (no stars, sun, planets etc)..I understand. It doesn't really work though, does it? The Sun clearly came before the Earth...
| Quote: | | Quote: | 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This seems to say that the earth was full of water and yet 'void'. Given that a void is empty this seems self-contradictory |
You are right, it seems self-contradictory. But it's a poem. The earth is empty, there is nothing except water. Darkness, chaos. There was water, but the main function of the earth, being a home to all the living beings, was still impossible. Without light and without dry land life is very difficult. So void means: it was unusable, worthless as long as there was only water. |
So the earth was covered in water? OK. Again this is contradicted by theory - in fact it is the opposite to current theory since we think the earth had little or no water at formation (it was, for one thing, too hot).
| Quote: | | Quote: | 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
From where does the light come? |
I don't know, guess God created it by saing so
But seriously, it's the description of how God created everything, the whole universe, just out of nothing. So the question where 'it came from' will always lead to the answer: from nowhere, because there was (almost) nothing, beside of God. |
So this means there was some light other than the sun and stars? Does this light get turned-off later when the sun pops up? |
Actually i always found this stuff fascinating. First off, ignore the idiotic claim that this myth is in any way representative of reality. This is a bit of Egyptian folklore that the early Jews picked up and plagiarized shamelessly, nothing more, nothing less. But once you accept that and give up trying to haphazardly reinterpret it to try and make it reasonably in line with reality, it does give you a really neat world view.
In the Bible, the Earth is flat, and fixed - several verses say this explicitly, many more hint at it implicitly. The heavens are not the stars, the heavens are a place "above" the stars. So you have the flat plane of Earth, and above that, the heavens, and each has water and "land".
In the beginning, only the heavens were formed into land and water, and the Earth was just a pile of junk in heaven's basement, without form. Basically, God made heaven first, and shaped it up nicely before turning his attention to Earth. All of that would have been Genesis 1:1.
Then God, finished with the heavens, turned his attention to Earth, which was basically a big pile of waterlogged rocks. God "fixed" the base of all that to a... something. ^_^; It's turtles all the way down, but you get the idea. That was Genesis 1:2. The "waters" God moves on are the waters of the heavens and Earth, which are still all connected.
Then he introduced illumination. No source is mentioned, but it's the light that lights heaven, so it's not the Sun or stars. This is Genesis 1:3. Making light and dark separate occupies the next couple of verses.
And then comes the best part. ^_^ God introduces "the firmament", which is a layer of... something... that separates the heavens and Earth. The Earth is a flat pile of rocky water at this point, and above this is the dome of "the firmament", and above that is the waters and lands of the heavens. If you travel up high enough, you will puncture the firmament and get to heaven (and this is a repeating theme, such as in Babel).
Then he goes about separating the rocky water into land and sea and so on, but personally, i've always found this firmament idea very amazingly cool. It is unfortunate that people take this mythology so damned seriously - and try so hard to argue that it's reality - because from an aesthetic point of view, it's a really neat and imaginative story.Indeed, if we read Genesis and try to derive a scientific explanation as to how everything happened, we will be sorely disappointed. Let us consider two things:
1: Is this the point of the Bible? Will my life be any easier today if I understand what happened then?
If the point of the bible were to let us understand the intricate inner workings of the universe it would be a very long, dry, uninspiring book and it would leave us with nothing to ponder. Many people would be out of jobs and much beloved mystery would be lost. Humans love mystery and discovery. I am sure that this is not the point of Genesis. So what IS the point? perhaps we are to understand something about ourselves through these teachings; which brings me to point #2....
2: what is really being said here? This is a book written by, presumably, Moses. So let us resort to Rabbinic Judaism, not simple Judaism or Christianity.
Rabbinic Judaism would refer us to Adam Kadmon. Neither male nor female, Adam Kadmon is the soul which contains ALL souls (Genesis 1:27 - in the image of God he created him ["it" sounds bad, so the word "him" is used here and for every other genderless pronoun]; male AND female he created them.)
From here, I am cloudy and constantly praying for understanding, but one thing sticks out... it is said that God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep, and from his rib was Eve created... however there is NO MENTION of Adam Waking up. I believe that we are essentially the dispersed divided souls who are collectively the sleeping Adam Kadmon. Jesus was the First to awake. The first to see that He existed in every living thing. He was not the first to realize that we were sleeping, as I believe that is what enlightenment is, and there were many before Jesus who reached enlightenment. We will all awake, we will combine again into the One Holy Son of God.
Another potentially useful tidbit; the word "was" in Hebrew as used in the following "in the beginning there was nothing" is a word that could as easily be translated to mean "became" so the other translation would be "in the beginning there BECAME nothing," is plausible.
Cheers! God Bless!
| stacygoode wrote: |
| From here, I am cloudy and constantly praying for understanding, but one thing sticks out... it is said that God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep, and from his rib was Eve created... however there is NO MENTION of Adam Waking up. |
Well, that's a very strange interpretation and a semantic quibble. The fact that Adam woke up is implicit in the text;
| Quote: |
| So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. |
Note - 'while he was sleeping' - in other words Adam slept whilst the rib was removed. Implicitly he woke afterwards, or why phrase it that way?
It also doesn't stack-up when you go on to read the rest of Genesis. Adam is clearly 'awake' since he and Eve continue their life in Eden.
The idea that Adam sleeping is a metaphor for being un-enlightened strikes me as completely unsustainable. | stacygoode wrote: |
| Another potentially useful tidbit; the word "was" in Hebrew as used in the following "in the beginning there was nothing" is a word that could as easily be translated to mean "became" so the other translation would be "in the beginning there BECAME nothing," is plausible |
Err...where does it say 'in the beginning there was nothing'? Nowhere in the bible that I know...did you invent it? | stacygoode wrote: |
| Indeed, if we read Genesis and try to derive a scientific explanation as to how everything happened, we will be sorely disappointed. |
The point is that Genesis gives us a fairly detailed account of creation. Much of it we can test against observable reality and it turns out that the account is simply wrong.
Presuming Moses did write Genesis (and there is no evidence that he did - or even that he existed) then why would the account be wrong, if we are to assume that God gave the account to Moses?
The answer is that, as Indi has pointed out, the account is a rehash of earlier beliefs - particularly Egyptian myth.
The point is not that the account leaves out things and doesn't give a complete scientific explanation, the point is that the explanation that IS given is not correct - it is a creation myth, not a real account. | stacygoode wrote: |
1: Is this the point of the Bible? Will my life be any easier today if I understand what happened then?
If the point of the bible were to let us understand the intricate inner workings of the universe it would be a very long, dry, uninspiring book and it would leave us with nothing to ponder. Many people would be out of jobs and much beloved mystery would be lost. Humans love mystery and discovery. I am sure that this is not the point of Genesis. So what IS the point? perhaps we are to understand something about ourselves through these teachings; which brings me to point #2.... |
What is the point of the Bible? Alright, i am happy to agree with you that it was not intended to be a science text - it does such a piss-poor job of that, i can't argue. But then, what is the point?
Correct me if i'm wrong... but isn't the point of the Bible to inform us - humanity - about the existence, nature and desires of God? It's supposed to tell us that God exists, what he is like, and what he wants us to do... right? And, for bonus points, it might also provide evidence for his existence, for his characteristics, and tell us why he wants us to do what he wants us to do... but it doesn't have to do those things. All that it has to do is give us the basics: God exists, he's like this, and this is what he wants from you.
If that is the point of the Bible, then there should be nothing in the Bible that serves any other purpose but to serve those goals. Otherwise... basically... "the word of God" would be full of meaningless filler.
Now, i'm not going to debate right now whether that is the case or not. i'm just going to focus on Genesis 1. How does the creation story serve the supposed goal of the Bible? Well, if it's true, it does tell is quite a bit about who God is, how he works, and why he wants us to follow his word.
But....
If it's false... what purpose does it serve?
In fact, if it's false... it does nothing to help out the goals of the Bible... and only serves to create confusion and chaos (for example, the modern creation/evolution "debate").
And let's not mince words... if the story is not literally true, it is a lie. A bald-faced, flat-out, no-holds-barred lie. It's no metaphor or parable - because it doesn't say it is (Jesus stated clearly that he spoke in parables, Moses did not). It presents itself as God's honest truth, and never deviates from that impression. If it weren't for science, we'd never have any reason to question it. And, in fact, in the thousands of years between Moses and Jesus, God never felt the urge to tell any prophet, "Oh yeah, by the way, that first part? Metaphor."
But let's allow for a moment that it is a metaphor. What purpose does it serve? How does it help the goal? How does such a silly story help the case for God, or why i should obey him? Frankly, it doesn't. You can cut it right out and the fundamental message of the Bible wouldn't change. It serves no purpose as a metaphor. So - again - either God put meaningless fluff in his message to humanity to confuse the hell out of us... or he means for it to be taken seriously, in which case it's not meant as metaphor.
So it is either true or it is a lie. This is the dilemma modern Christians face. Some - refusing to call God a liar - insist that it is true. Others - attempting to straddle the fence - try back-breakingly hard to "interpret" the Genesis account in a way that makes sense with science. It's really rather pathetic to watch, because invariably these people don't understand the science as well as they understand the Bible and end up making fools of themselves. Here's the fact... it doesn't match. It simply doesn't. And replacing "days" with "ages" does not fix it. The sequence is wrong, the steps and descriptions are nonsensical... it just don't work.
So, there's the line. Either the Genesis account is true, or the word of God has lies in it. And you can try to dance along the line without committing to either side of it... but you're only going to end up looking like a fool.
You know where i stand. i'm not big on Biblical obscurity. My position is clear. The Genesis account is a lie. What's your position? | Bikerman wrote: |
| stacygoode wrote: | | Another potentially useful tidbit; the word "was" in Hebrew as used in the following "in the beginning there was nothing" is a word that could as easily be translated to mean "became" so the other translation would be "in the beginning there BECAME nothing," is plausible |
Err...where does it say 'in the beginning there was nothing'? Nowhere in the bible that I know...did you invent it? |
sorry, my bad...
"In the beginning the Earth was formless" could be translated to say, "in the beginning the Earth became formless."
Thank you for keeping me straight. The I deas I'm proposing are not meant to attack, but rather I would like to see people reading as though they never heard of the book before. Read it as though you're the first one to read it. Feel free to think while you're reading it. God did not intend for us to think the way we are told to think, but rather just to think and be faithful to Him. I am not questioning the Almighty, I am only trying to understand.
I am not in any way saying that Genesis is a mataphore. I am saying that what we believe to be reality is nowhere close to the reality of God. My physical body is not ME, it is MINE. When it dies, I will continue to be. As Christ lives in me, I live in Him. As Christ lives in you, then, logically, I must also live in you. That is no metaphore, unless you think Jesus was just trying to make a point, then we ARE ONE in the body of Christ. I take Genesis and the entire Bible very literlally.
God bless you all, and thanks again, bikerman, for the correction. | stacygoode wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | stacygoode wrote: | | Another potentially useful tidbit; the word "was" in Hebrew as used in the following "in the beginning there was nothing" is a word that could as easily be translated to mean "became" so the other translation would be "in the beginning there BECAME nothing," is plausible |
Err...where does it say 'in the beginning there was nothing'? Nowhere in the bible that I know...did you invent it? |
sorry, my bad...
"In the beginning the Earth was formless" could be translated to say, "in the beginning the Earth became formless." |
Again you are misquoting.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
In other words the earth did not 'become' formless. To become formless would imply that it previously had form - it didn't. It was created and its created state was without 'form'.
| Quote: |
| I am not in any way saying that Genesis is a mataphore. I am saying that what we believe to be reality is nowhere close to the reality of God. |
If it is not a metaphor then it must be literal. If it is literal then it is in error. You can't have it both ways. It contains a sequence and a timescale which DID NOT HAPPEN according to modern science.
| Quote: |
| My physical body is not ME, it is MINE. When it dies, I will continue to be. As Christ lives in me, I live in Him. As Christ lives in you, then, logically, I must also live in you. That is no metaphore, unless you think Jesus was just trying to make a point, then we ARE ONE in the body of Christ. I take Genesis and the entire Bible very literlally. |
What has Jesus got to do with Genesis? Genesis was written many centuries before Jesus appeared on the scene.
If you take the Genesis account literally then- You need to read it a bit more carefully so that you know what you believe
- You are a creationist and, presumably, reject much of modern science - things like evolutionary biology, cosmology, palaeontology, genetic biology, particle physics, geology and archaeology. Non of those disciplines can fit into a world where the genesis account is literal - it can't be done.
Chris,
(If intend to quote verbatum, I do it like this...)
Gen1:1-2 - "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth. Now the Earth was formless and empty."
I am reading from the new internation version of the Bible (NIV). 100 multilingual biblical scholars came together to agree on this translation and they offered up that it may be "was" or "became".
I think that what ever wiped life off the earth billions of years ago pretty much left the earth with out form. That is, a blank slate.
I am only trying to share my thoughts here don't let it upset you. If you don't believe, that's your choice. My intention is to show people they have the right to think for themselves. It is not black or white. But above all, I intend to show people that you don't have put your brain in the trash-can to believe in God.
I think that Genesis is meant to account for the beginning of the dream in which we are each characters.
I think Darwin pinned it when he said that his theories were flawed, because they could not account for the existence of the eye. How could seeing evolve from not seeing?
I believe in evolution because I have witnessed it, but I don't believe that we all stem from the same single-celled organism.
I believe that if we came from something it would be because the thing we came from could not survive the way it was, but there are still monkeys around, so out goes survival of the fittest. There are many flaws in the theory of evolution.
I believe that there were dinasours and then the Earth became formless.
I believe that noone knows what actually happened.
I don't believe that squabling ever got anyone anywhere that they wanted to be.
I think Jesus has everything to do with Genesis. He was nearly stoned for saying "before Abraham was born, I Am" (john 8:58) He was saying that He was one with God and created the Earth. He was saying that he has always been in everyone and even before everyone.
Anyway... I love discussing this, but hate arguing about it. I would like to hear your account. Are/were you Jewish? Christian? Agnostic? I can't figure it out.
God bless.
| stacygoode wrote: |
Chris,
(If intend to quote verbatum, I do it like this...)
Gen1:1-2 - "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth. Now the Earth was formless and empty." |
Well, the correct way is to use quote tags, but since the bible is non-copyright that method seems OK to me..
| Quote: |
| I am reading from the new internation version of the Bible (NIV). 100 multilingual biblical scholars came together to agree on this translation and they offered up that it may be "was" or "became". |
Well, we can use that version if you like (I was using KJV).
The scholars you refer to use the word 'was' and not the word 'became'. That is the consensus, which should tell you something. It is also the translation used in just about every other version of the bible, which should also tell you something...
Why not consider the original yourself:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/9_genesis.html
| Quote: |
| I think that what ever wiped life off the earth billions of years ago pretty much left the earth with out form. That is, a blank slate. |
So you think that there was life on Earth billions of years ago and then that life was wiped-out? Where does that notion come from? It is certainly not consistent with either the Bible or science....
| Quote: |
| I am only trying to share my thoughts here don't let it upset you. If you don't believe, that's your choice. My intention is to show people they have the right to think for themselves. It is not black or white. But above all, I intend to show people that you don't have put your brain in the trash-can to believe in God. |
I am not upset - this is my normal debating style.
| Quote: |
| I think that Genesis is meant to account for the beginning of the dream in which we are each characters. |
And what do you base this on? You say that you take the bible literally and yet there is no suggestion that life is a 'dream' in Genesis...
| Quote: |
| I think Darwin pinned it when he said that his theories were flawed, because they could not account for the existence of the eye. How could seeing evolve from not seeing? |
I thought you said you wanted people to use their brains? You now repeat one of the most brainless, dishonest statements that creationists constantly use. This has been done to death many times on these forums. Darwin NEVER SAID that his theory could not account for the eye. This is a LIE which creationists use all the time. Darwin proposed a rhetorical question AND THEN HE ANSWERED IT.
Why not read exactly what he said, rather than the selected, edited, dishonest version that creationists use:
| DARWIN wrote: |
| To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. |
That's a little different to your version is it not?
| Quote: |
| I believe in evolution because I have witnessed it, but I don't believe that we all stem from the same single-celled organism. |
Well you have not read enough.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
| Quote: |
| I believe that if we came from something it would be because the thing we came from could not survive the way it was, but there are still monkeys around, so out goes survival of the fittest. There are many flaws in the theory of evolution. |
LOL...now we have brainless assertion number 2 in the creationist dogma. There are no significant flaws in the theory. You need to read properly and not selectively (see above link).
Individual members of a species undergo genetic mutation and either pass on those mutations to their offspring if it is beneficial, or don't if it is not (ie they either die or do not breed). Thus a species diverges, with the non-mutated individuals continuing to reproduce and the mutated individuals passing on the mutation to the new sub-group. It is really very simple (and beautiful).
| Quote: |
| I believe that there were dinasours and then the Earth became formless. |
There was life LONG before the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs did NOT die out completely, they evolved like everything else - consider reptilian forms today and consider birds. Neither did all life die-out when the comet struck earth about 65 million years ago. About 70% of species became extinct but the rest carried on evolving...
| Quote: |
| I believe that noone knows what actually happened. |
Well the fossil record is pretty good. We also have other evidence - the iridium boundary etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event
| Quote: |
| I don't believe that squabling ever got anyone anywhere that they wanted to be. |
There is a difference between squabbling and reasoned debate. I do the latter...
| Quote: |
I think Jesus has everything to do with Genesis. He was nearly stoned for saying "before Abraham was born, I Am" (john 8:5 He was saying that He was one with God and created the Earth. He was saying that he has always been in everyone and even before everyone. |
Yes, that is a standard Christian interpretation. It leads to a logical absurdity which is 'resolved' by the notion of a trinity - an explanation which I personally find rather silly.
| Quote: |
| Anyway... I love discussing this, but hate arguing about it. I would like to hear your account. Are/were you Jewish? Christian? Agnostic? I can't figure it out. |
Argument is essential in discussion, otherwise you simply have agreement and what is the point of that?
I was raised Catholic and am now atheist.I must ask you why you spend so much time and energy talking about something you don't believe in. May I suggest that deep down you want someone to convince you that there is hope beyond yourself. The other option is that misery loves company, in which case you are wasting your time and mine too I fear. This may be a rhetorical question. Your choice.
I was not aware of Darwins seniment of retraction. Yet do I find many things subversive to his theory, including his own rhetorical statement, as it may be, about the unlikelyhood of the eye. I freely admit that I am not well versed in evolutionism, and I am not trying to argue that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I don't find myself particularly interested in knowing EXACTLY how we got here, rather I like to concentrate on how we get out of here.
The fundamantal difference between spirituality and religion is that religion prorposes we look forward to heaven, while spirituality focuses on backing out of hell. That is what I care about. I did not go to the science forum. I came to the religious/philisophical forum. I don't understand why you chose this forum when you seem more interested in scientific study. You cannot save me from God, you don't even believe He exists. I am not interested in scientifically proving that God exists, God would not have me try.
Arguing assumes that you know you are right, discussing assumes that we are really listening to each other and willing to change our minds if we are shown to be wrong. I cannot be moved ot not believe in God, but I am very willing to reconcinder some of my concepts about Him. I can't prove His existance with words, if you want proof of God, ask God. I have faith because God speaks to me. I have faith because I know that I know, not because someone else convinced me to believe.
I know how your battle ends. You win. Not because you beat anyone else, but because you will not die. The only choice you can make is to let go of this world, or to hold on to it.
God bless you, brother.
| stacygoode wrote: |
| I must ask you why you spend so much time and energy talking about something you don't believe in. May I suggest that deep down you want someone to convince you that there is hope beyond yourself. The other option is that misery loves company, in which case you are wasting your time and mine too I fear. This may be a rhetorical question. Your choice. |
I debate because this is a debating forum. If you only talk about what you believe then your horizons are narrowed. If you can convince me then fine - I doubt it but you are welcome to try.
| Quote: |
| I was not aware of Darwins seniment of retraction. |
More dishonesty. Darwin did NOT retract - the words above were his words, not a retraction of a previous position. You see what you are doing? making dishonest statements - first about what Darwin said and now about why he said it. This is no way to behave in a debate and it is the reason that creationists are often perceived as dishonest.
| Quote: |
| Yet do I find many things subversive to his theory, including his own rhetorical statement, as it may be, about the unlikelyhood of the eye. I freely admit that I am not well versed in evolutionism, and I am not trying to argue that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I don't find myself particularly interested in knowing EXACTLY how we got here, rather I like to concentrate on how we get out of here. |
Err..the thread is about Genesis - which is an account of how we got here. If you are not interested in this then what exactly is your point?
| Quote: |
| The fundamantal difference between spirituality and religion is that religion prorposes we look forward to heaven, while spirituality focuses on backing out of hell. |
What! That is complete nonsense. Are you making this up as you go along?
| Quote: |
| That is what I care about. I did not go to the science forum. I came to the religious/philisophical forum. I don't understand why you chose this forum when you seem more interested in scientific study. You cannot save me from God, you don't even believe He exists. I am not interested in scientifically proving that God exists, God would not have me try. |
I post in the science forum as well. When I discuss religion I do it here .. no contradiction. Discussing Genesis is a religious discussion, which does not mean we have to leave science out of it.
| Quote: |
| Arguing assumes that you know you are right, discussing assumes that we are really listening to each other and willing to change our minds if we are shown to be wrong. I cannot be moved ot not believe in God, but I am very willing to reconcinder some of my concepts about Him. |
Do you not see any contradiction in those 2 sentences? You are also incorrect. Argument is simply a discussion where there is a disagreement. I don't claim to know I am right - that would require faith. I examine the evidence and reach a conclusion. If more evidence comes to light then my conclusion might change - that is how we reason.
| Quote: |
| I can't prove His existance with words, if you want proof of God, ask God. I have faith because God speaks to me. I have faith because I know that I know, not because someone else convinced me to believe. |
Words are all we have in these forums..
| Quote: |
| I know how your battle ends. You win. Not because you beat anyone else, but because you will not die. The only choice you can make is to let go of this world, or to hold on to it. |
I don't understand that at all... | stacygoode wrote: |
| I am not in any way saying that Genesis is a mataphore. I am saying that what we believe to be reality is nowhere close to the reality of God. [...] I take Genesis and the entire Bible very literlally. |
Does that mean that you believe that the world we see all around us is a fiction? That nothing we think we understand about the physical universe is true?
Because i can't see any other way to make sense out of those statements. If the Genesis account is not a metaphor, then science is all wrong. That's what most Jewish/Christian/Islamic extremists believe. But then you go a step further and say that "what we believe to be reality" is not real reality. Doesn't that mean that God is tricking all of us with a fake reality? In other words... a big lie?[temporary presence]
I think what stacygoode means is we are in one dimension and God is in one dimension. ?
[/temporary presence]
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
[temporary presence]
I think what stacygoode means is we are in one dimension and God is in one dimension. ?
[/temporary presence] |
exactly, and what is temporary is not eternal, thus does not fit with the reality of God, thus is not real. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
[temporary presence]
I think what stacygoode means is we are in one dimension and God is in one dimension. ?
[/temporary presence] |
If that is what he or she means, then he or she has said a whole lot of nothing. Genesis remains either a lie, or literally true. You can't have it both ways. | Indi wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | [temporary presence]
I think what stacygoode means is we are in one dimension and God is in one dimension. ?
[/temporary presence] |
If that is what he or she means, then he or she has said a whole lot of nothing. Genesis remains either a lie, or literally true. You can't have it both ways. |
Indy, can you visualize the audience at that time, centuries of centuries of centuries ago for whom the Bible was written (gradually chapter by chapter). They could not read. They could not write. So whoever did the writing had to do it in a way that they could understand. I cannot imagine them being able to digest heavy scientific facts, but if they had been intellectually evolved as you are now, then perhaps Genesis would have been written differently. I do not think the message is supposed to be in the literal meaning of words.Well, nobody is asking for scientific facts. I do not expect the bible to give a detailed description of genetics or palaeontology. What I do expect is a simple statement of what happened.
When Genesis says first event A happened and took time X, then event B happened and took time Y, then event C happened and took time Z then it is not unreasonable to think that might be true.
When science tells us that not only is the order of events wrong but the times are massively different, then there is a problem.
It is not a case of things like the Genesis account being incomplete or lacking detail. It is a case of them being totally, utterly, completely, ridiculously wrong.
Now that is fine if you want to treat such passages as parables or metaphors, but when people insist that they are literal truth then I have a problem with that.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Well, nobody is asking for scientific facts. I do not expect the bible to give a detailed description of genetics or palaeontology. What I do expect is a simple statement of what happened.
When Genesis says first event A happened and took time X, then event B happened and took time Y, then event C happened and took time Z then it is not unreasonable to think that might be true.
When science tells us that not only is the order of events wrong but the times are massively different, then there is a problem.
It is not a case of things like the Genesis account being incomplete or lacking detail. It is a case of them being totally, utterly, completely, ridiculously wrong.
Now that is fine if you want to treat such passages as parables or metaphors, but when people insist that they are literal truth then I have a problem with that. |
The Bible is quite old, and if the sequence of creation was wrong by scientific criteria of our present century, it does not take anything away or make anything a lie. Possibly that chapter needs to be updated? | deanhills wrote: |
| The Bible is quite old, and if the sequence of creation was wrong by scientific criteria of our present century, it does not take anything away or make anything a lie. Possibly that chapter needs to be updated? |
Err...why would the sequence or the timescale have anything to do with the age of the Bible? - that makes no sense. The bible is supposedly the word of God - divinely inspired truth. Are you suggesting it was right at the time but the sequence has since changed? 2500-odd years ago it was still wrong - it was still a lie. 2500-odd years ago it was still true that the Earth was NOT created before the Sun. 2500-odd years ago it was still true that trees did NOT appear before marine life. 2500-odd years ago it was still true that vegetation did NOT appear before the Sun did....and so on.
We also have to consider that the account is not even self-consistent (never mind about scientific accuracy).
Consider:
Genesis 1:25-27 First plants are created, followed by animals, then man and woman.
Genesis 2:18-22 Adam is created, followed by animals, and then Eve.
Huh?? Which order was it?
Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
Huh?? One language or many?
Adam and Eve are the first humans. They beget Cain and Abel. Abel is killed by Cain.
Genesis 4:14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.
Huh?? Who will kill him?
Genesis 4:17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.
Huh?? Where did she come from then?
and so on (there are many more contradictions - try reading Genesis 8 with a straight face).
PS - this is not a new issue that suddenly arose with the advance of science over the last couple of centuries. The issue has been a contentious one for much longer than that.
Consider the following quote from Augustine in the 5th century CE.
| Augustine wrote: |
| It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | HalfBloodPrince wrote: | [temporary presence]
I think what stacygoode means is we are in one dimension and God is in one dimension. ?
[/temporary presence] |
If that is what he or she means, then he or she has said a whole lot of nothing. Genesis remains either a lie, or literally true. You can't have it both ways. |
Indy, can you visualize the audience at that time, centuries of centuries of centuries ago for whom the Bible was written (gradually chapter by chapter). They could not read. They could not write. So whoever did the writing had to do it in a way that they could understand. I cannot imagine them being able to digest heavy scientific facts, but if they had been intellectually evolved as you are now, then perhaps Genesis would have been written differently. I do not think the message is supposed to be in the literal meaning of words. |
There are many, many things wrong with all that.
First... you seriously underestimate the "audience at the time". They may not have been scientifically literate, but they were not dribbling idiots. They had enough intellectual awareness to have a language, after all. Yes, they had no written language (at first), but they had a complete oral language.
The text as is is vague and meandering... and wrong. Why can't it be vague and meandering... and right? Look, i'll show you. i'll write a better opening to Genesis than God: "In the beginning, there was nothing, not even time, then God said be, and everything began, spreading out from a point like ripples on a pond. After a great length of time, the fires of creation cooled, and separated into earth and sky. And God saw that it was growing dark, so he created the stars. Then, some time later, he gathered land together into balls and set them in motion around the stars. And one ball he named Earth. And on Earth he created land and water... etc..." Vague, meandering... but right! Why couldn't God do that?
There's no need for heavy scientific facts... just don't be plain wrong. That's not hard to do.
Genesis is plain wrong. This is not a matter of not having heavy scientific facts wrong. It's completely, through and through, plain wrong. There's nothing about it that's right! You can't squint and say it's "close enough" or it's "metaphorically correct". It's wrong.
Unless... you want to reject what we know of science.
Those are your only two options.I feel that we neglect the alternate translation of "in the beginning...the earth became formless." For me this provides a completely different timeline that I find acceptable. That "was" was used instead, even after the alternative was presented, only tells me that the translators didnt want to offend. I think that science is continually proving itself incorrect, and if we just wait, it will catch up with what we were given by the Tora thousands of years ago. Again, there are only two options, the Bible is divinely inspired, or it is a bag of lies, but I don't feel we (those who don't speak Hebrew) have been given a propper option in the first place. Just something to consider. I am still learning, but God's Word has been faithful to me, so will I be to God's Word.
God bless you all! I praise God that people are thinking about Him, and striving to understand.
Stacy
Again you ignore that facts because they contradict your 'feelings'.
The translations of the bible all agree on the word 'was' because it is the most appropriate translation. Whether you find it unacceptible or not is not really an issue. The idea that all the different translators of the bible 'did not want to offend' is silly. Who would they be offending? Surely they would be more likely to use a translation that was closer to the truth if such a translation were possible?
It is not really important anyway since even using the word 'became' does not change anything. It would imply that all life was destroyed on Earth and then a new creation was put in place. That didn't happen, as we know.
The idea that science is constantly proving itself wrong is also silly. Science grows by incorporating new observations into existing theories and, where necessary, changing theories to fit new observations. It certainly TRIES to prove hypothesese wrong - that is how science functions. Those hypothesese which are proved wrong are ditched and we end up with the ones that stand the test of time. I bet you can't give me one example of a proper scientific theory that has been proved wrong in the last century...go on, try. You have already said that you don't really understand evolution and other scientific accounts - so why do you now feel qualified to make statements about what science says and where it is headed?
The idea that science will somehow converge on the Genesis account is just daft - it won't, ever. We already know that the earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago AFTER the sun. We may learn more about the precise mechanisms but the sequence will not change. We know that plants and animals did not appear before the Sun did - that will not change. I could go on and list the other numerous errors in Genesis but it would serve no point - Genesis is wrong, badly wrong, and that is not going to change. In your words, it is 'a bag of lies'. This was known long ago - Augustine knew it over 1500 years ago (and said so). It is not a new development.
As I have previously said you can look at a literal translation of Genesis from the Hebrew at the address below. It gives the original Hebrew together with a translation of each word and a definition and more detailed explanation for each. Why not see if you can make your 'theory' stand up? (Hint - you can't because it just doesn't work)...
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/9_genesis.html I do speak out of faith, with no proof. I think there are many who would not have bought the version of the Bible that I read if the translation had said "became" rather than "was." The translators were watching out for their pocket books here. I stand with Genesis, perhaps naively, out of faith/fear of God. Which is not to say that God is scarey, just bigger than I am. for me to suppose that He is wrong because I do't get it, would be doing my Lord a great disservice. so for the scientifically minded, I concede that I cannot prove Genesis, But I challenge you (collectively) to call evolution anything but a theory. Evolutionists try and fail all the time.
Best regards and God bless.
I'm afraid this simply shows that you don't understand science. Everything in science is a theory - gravity, evolution etc. A theory is a scientific description of phenomena, that's what the word means. You are confused because you think a theory is something that is possibly wrong. That is the way that the word is used in day to day conversation. In science, however, it means something much different.
I don't understand what you mean by 'evolutionists try and fail all the time'. Can you give me one single example to back up that remarkable claim? It is not a case of 'not getting it'. We get it alright - Genesis is pretty easy to understand. It is just that it is wrong.
| stacygoode wrote: |
| I feel that we neglect the alternate translation of "in the beginning...the earth became formless." For me this provides a completely different timeline that I find acceptable. That "was" was used instead, even after the alternative was presented, only tells me that the translators didnt want to offend. |
Is that what it tells you? ^_^; That's unfortunate. Given that i have a little more faith in people and a little less in my own paranoia, it tells me that there must be something about the context that makes it make more sense as "was" than "became".
And, given my natural urge to seek out information to test my beliefs (rather than simply believing them and trying to force everything i see and hear to support them), i went out and did a little digging.
Turns out that the verb used in Genesis 1:2 is היה - or "hayah", which means "to be". In Genesis 1:2, it is used in the qal form past tense - היתה - so it means "was". Now, i could have stopped there - the sentence is clearly "the earth was formless", not "became"... but something told me to check a little further.
And i did, and i found that in Deuteronomy 27:9, the same verb stem "hayah" was used for "become": "...thou art become the people of..." It looked like you might have a case!
But then i looked a little deeper.
And it turned out that in Deuteronomy 27:9, even though the same stem was used, it was used in the niphal form, not the qal form. It is not היה - it is נהיה.
So what, right?
Well, you see, it turns out that in the niphal form, "hayah" becomes passive. Which means that in the qal form "to be", becomes in the niphal form "to come to be"... or... "to become".
So! Since it is in the qal form in Genesis 1:2, it is "to be" (or, in the past tense, "was"). And since it is in the niphal form in Deuteronomy 27:9, it is "to come to be", or "to become".
In other words... no, the translators were not involved in some conspiracy to be politically correct or whatever. They translated it correctly. The alternate translation - "the earth became formless" - would be wrong... that's simply not what it says (and if it wanted to say that, it could have easily done so with a single, simple nun (נ)).
| stacygoode wrote: |
| I think that science is continually proving itself incorrect, and if we just wait, it will catch up with what we were given by the Tora thousands of years ago. |
To the first part, yes, it is. That's actually what it's designed to do, it's really the whole point of science. If science ever stops proving itself incorrect, we would either be at a complete dead-end, or gods.
The thing is... it is not a matter of "catching up" with the Torah. For all intents and purposes, in Western science, the Torah is where we started. What you are actually hoping for is for science to be completely wrong, as in everything we've ever done from day one is all wrong, and we should have stuck with what we started with - that is, the Torah.
But does that sound right? To me, the chances of finding out that every accomplishment ever made in science was all wrong, and the original idea - the Torah - was right all along... it's a little strange. If science is so completely wrong... well, how can it be, i ask, as i type on this state-of-the-art computer connected to a global network, etc. etc.?
| stacygoode wrote: |
| Again, there are only two options, the Bible is divinely inspired, or it is a bag of lies, but I don't feel we (those who don't speak Hebrew) have been given a propper option in the first place. Just something to consider. |
חבל ^_^;
Aramaic: חבל = destroy, damage, injure
Hebrew: חבל = rope
Could this mean 'give them enough rope and they destroy/hang themselves' ?
If that was intended then that has to be the best word-play I've seen for a long time....rrrrressspect That might be the root of the expression. ^_^; It's actually slang used by Isreali kids - it translates to something with the sense of, "Oh, well," or "What a pity," or "That sucks."
| Indi wrote: |
| That might be the root of the expression. ^_^; It's actually slang used by Isreali kids - it translates to something with the sense of, "Oh, well," or "What a pity," or "That sucks." |
I much prefer the previous Let's see, Hitchhiker's Guide offers a solution;
truth is beauty therefore beauty is truth
the previous phrase is more beautiful and therefore more true
| Bikerman wrote: |
I will try to make more since of this for you.
Chapter 1.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the Earth and Heaven were created at the same time and before the stars. Hmm..that seems to contradict all current understanding of cosmology.
I dont understand what it is you have a problem with here? Is it that the stars can be created after the earth and Heaven. Considering you probally believe that stars are still being created today even though it has never been observed. Or is your problem that the Bible doesnt have the Earth, Sun, Univers, Stars all created at the same moment where (the big bang) all the matter and energy in space came together and went boom. A question, where did all of that matter and energy come from if the big bang is your "The beginning"
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This seems to say that the earth was full of water and yet 'void'. Given that a void is empty this seems self-contradictory
Just because it says void doesnt mean it is void of everything. You can say something is void of something specifly
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
From where does the light come?
Easy it came from God. Which you may not like that answer but if you are going to come and try to argue about something of the supernatural expect to get a answer that is not scientific.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Presumably this means he sets the earth spinning on its axis.
I would not say he set the earth spinning at this point considering the sun and moon were not created yet. As far as the light came from again I say God but if I had to guess I would say that he made light and then took it away to create the first day.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So a day is measured from evening to morning? Hmm.
I am going to give you the translation straight from a hebrew to english Bible
And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day[b/]
Ok say it says there was evening(night) and there was morning(beginning of the new day) all this says is that between these two times it starts the new day and finishs the old
[b]6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
So there is a 'sky' or 'heavens' in the middle of a lot of water?
What this firmament would be the sky and atmosphere. This goes along with the flood where the Bible says there was water above the firmament(atmosphere) So what this means if you have the earth with water in it or on it then you have air and atmosphere and then above that is more water
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
So now we have water under the sky and water above it. Hmm.
Yes its the same as what I just said and you said about the last verse
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Ahh...so now the firmament is heaven...but surely heaven was created 'in the beginning'?
Ok before we had earth with water on that and then space or heaven and when God seperated the waters the writer here is just letting you know that the space that is between water on the earth and the water above the firmament is also called heaven or space considering that it reverts back to its old state after the flood
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
So we have one ocean and one island? OK...that works.
I agree
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
OK, this works...we now have land and sea.
We both agree again
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
So the first life on earth is grass and trees? This seems to contradict everything we know about the appearance of life (the first life was primitive bacteria which appeared in the oceans about 4 billion yrs ago).
I have a question about this, do you yourself or perhaps you know someone who was there 4 billion years ago to see this primitive bacteria come about. You seem to state that as it is fact which it is not it has not been proven. So it doesnt contradict something you simply accept to be true.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Nope - grasses did not appear until about 65 million years ago (well over 4 billion years after the earth was formed). Trees evolved during the Devonian period (about 350 million years ago).
Again something that is not proven. How do you explain petrified trees that are standing upright that is sticking thru 3 diff layers or stratas of time age periods.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Again this definition of a day as evening and morning. What happened to the afternoon?
First off the word afternoon did not come about untill around the 13th century. Second the way I use the afternoon to use for a time interger is to eat lunch. I dont say I have a apointment on thursday on the first half of the day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Hang on - I thought light appeared on day 1? We are now in day 4. What's going on?
So God is now making the Sun and Moon and stars. So yes light appeared before but never said it was the Sun. How it worked I guess only God knows.
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Hmm...very odd indeed. Is this the creation of stars? Surely the Sun is a star?
This verse is mainly leading up to the next verse
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Ahh so this is the Sun and the Moon. But the moon is not a light - it merely reflects the light from the Sun. The seasons are determined by the Sun and the Earth's rotation/orbit but if we are only now seeing the Sun appear then how did the grasses and trees appear (since they rely on photosynthesis) ?
Ok first even though the moon is not a light or star like the sun it still provides light at night or lesser light. The verse doesnt say He made a great fireball it just says a lesser light. Which works pretty good if you ask me kinda like a intelligent designer set it up. Also can imagine the moon being a star, It would be pretty hot here I bet. How did the grass and the trees appear thats a good question but considering we are looking at what the day before when he spoke them into existance I dont think its a problem.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Hmm...I wonder...
What nothing to say on this one lol
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Good? It's a ruddy miracle...
Ok
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Again with this aversion for afternoons...did God have a bad experience one afternoon?
Again we dont measure a day by afternoon
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
So we now get sea-life and birds?
Yep
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Yep - sea life and birds all apear at once (including sea mammals). This contradicts everything we know about the appearance of life on earth...
Again based on what? something that is not proven
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
So we have creatures in the oceans and birds on the land.
Yep
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Come on God...get over this afternoon problem.
Come on man thats just stupid
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
So now we get mammals and insects?
You sure figured it out
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Yep - mammals and insects now appear. Again this contradicts everything we know about the appearance of life on earth. The earliest insect fossils we have are around 400 million years old. The earliest mammals appeared around 220 million years ago. Cattle appeared much later down the line.
Once again based on what you know or think you know. Perhaps you would like to share with the class what proof you have to prove this 400 million time period and I mean a fact or piece of proof not some theory or something that may support this.
26 And 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 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So mankind is now to appear?
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Hang on - I thought Eve was the first woman created from Adam's rib - but surely that is later in Genesis 2? Hmm...
What you want to notice is that chapter one is head of the book which follows is the major content going into more detail and even repeating what happened. Chapter 2 and on explains what chapter 2 verse 4 says
4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. [b/]
So now we start from Adam and Even and continue down the line. I dont understand what is hard to understand there.
Now compare this with what we actually know about the evolution of life on earth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html |
[b] | DavidkChase wrote: |
| I will try to make more since of this for you.[b] |
I presume you mean sense? In which case - fine.
| Quote: |
| I dont understand what it is you have a problem with here? Is it that the stars can be created after the earth and Heaven. Considering you probally believe that stars are still being created today even though it has never been observed. Or is your problem that the Bible doesnt have the Earth, Sun, Univers, Stars all created at the same moment where (the big bang) all the matter and energy in space came together and went boom. A question, where did all of that matter and energy come from if the big bang is your "The beginning" |
The BB was about 14 billion years ago. The Earth was 'created' about 4.5 billion years ago. That's quite a gap. Yes I do believe that stars are being created today and yes it HAS been observed. Your description of the BB is wrong - all the matter/energy did not 'come together'. We don't know what triggered the BB and perhaps we will never know. Alternatively we may find out - if m-theory turns out to be correct, for example. I don't think (without wishing to seem patronising) that you would understand m-theory or BB cosmology, however, since you need to do a lot of reading in physics before it begins to make sense.
| Quote: |
| Just because it says void doesnt mean it is void of everything. You can say something is void of something specifly |
Yes you can, but no it doesn't say that, does it?
| Quote: |
| Easy it came from God. Which you may not like that answer but if you are going to come and try to argue about something of the supernatural expect to get a answer that is not scientific. |
In what form did the light come from God? Did empty space just suddenly glow?
| Quote: |
| I would not say he set the earth spinning at this point considering the sun and moon were not created yet. As far as the light came from again I say God but if I had to guess I would say that he made light and then took it away to create the first day. |
Then why does the account not say so?
| Quote: |
I am going to give you the translation straight from a hebrew to english Bible
[b]And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day[b/]
Ok say it says there was evening(night) and there was morning(beginning of the new day) all this says is that between these two times it starts the new day and finishs the old |
So God switches on the magic light every 12 hours and then turns it off again? You see, if the light comes from God then we have to suppose that God is in one particular place (like the sun) for night and day to occur as the earth rotates on it's axis. If God is everywhere then this would not happen since the whole sky would be bright. If your theory is correct and God was shining a light from a particular place then heaven (the abode of God) must be where the Sun is today. It's an interesting theory but I would think that it would be a bit warm...
| Quote: |
| What this firmament would be the sky and atmosphere. This goes along with the flood where the Bible says there was water above the firmament(atmosphere) So what this means if you have the earth with water in it or on it then you have air and atmosphere and then above that is more water |
And you think that makes sense?
| Quote: |
| Ok before we had earth with water on that and then space or heaven and when God seperated the waters the writer here is just letting you know that the space that is between water on the earth and the water above the firmament is also called heaven or space considering that it reverts back to its old state after the flood |
So heaven is space? In that case the 'light' theory does not work does it? Since the whole sky would be bright wouldn't it?
| Quote: |
| I have a question about this, do you yourself or perhaps you know someone who was there 4 billion years ago to see this primitive bacteria come about. You seem to state that as it is fact which it is not it has not been proven. So it doesnt contradict something you simply accept to be true. |
Have you ever seen President Clinton or President Bush? Do you think they exist? Are you sure? Did you ever meet your great-great-grandparents? How do you know they existed? Perhaps you were never born?
| Quote: |
| Again something that is not proven. How do you explain petrified trees that are standing upright that is sticking thru 3 diff layers or stratas of time age periods. |
Perhaps you can provide a reference for this and then I will be able to comment on it...
| Quote: |
| First off the word afternoon did not come about untill around the 13th century. Second the way I use the afternoon to use for a time interger is to eat lunch. I dont say I have a apointment on thursday on the first half of the day. |
Nonsense. There was a perfectly good hebrew word for afternoon - tzohorayim - which is the pluralised form of 'lights'. The reason is given by a Rabbi as follows: | Quote: |
| In the morning when the sun is in the east, there is a shadow on the west side of objects. In the afternoon when the sun is in the west, there is a shadow on the east side of objects. Only at noon, when the sun is directly overhead, is there no shadow, neither to the east nor to the west of objects. Both sides are light, hence, noon is called "tzohorayim" in the plural to indicate a time of total light. |
| Quote: |
| So God is now making the Sun and Moon and stars. So yes light appeared before but never said it was the Sun. How it worked I guess only God knows. |
Well, we already know that this light must have appeared from where the Sun is today...
| Quote: |
| Ok first even though the moon is not a light or star like the sun it still provides light at night or lesser light. The verse doesnt say He made a great fireball it just says a lesser light. Which works pretty good if you ask me kinda like a intelligent designer set it up. Also can imagine the moon being a star, It would be pretty hot here I bet. How did the grass and the trees appear thats a good question but considering we are looking at what the day before when he spoke them into existance I dont think its a problem. |
The moon is not a light of any type - it doesn't shine, it merely reflects light. There is no way that grasses and trees could appear BEFORE sunlight...
(the rest of the posting is just repeats of the same themes)..For some reason as smart as I know you to be you cannot wrap your brain around something. You start a thread in the Philosophy and Religion section arguing Genesis. However you want to argue using science against something that deals with the supernatural. When you can come to terms that the God you are trying to debunk does not revolve or is effected by your science then you can have a arguement.
| Quote: |
The BB was about 14 billion years ago. The Earth was 'created' about 4.5 billion years ago. That's quite a gap. Yes I do believe that stars are being created today and yes it HAS been observed. Your description of the BB is wrong - all the matter/energy did not 'come together'. We don't know what triggered the BB and perhaps we will never know. Alternatively we may find out - if m-theory turns out to be correct, for example. I don't think (without wishing to seem patronising) that you would understand m-theory or BB cosmology, however, since you need to do a lot of reading in physics before it begins to make sense.
|
First off stars have NOT been observed being born and if you can offer a reference or proof then please share, if not then dont make such claims. Second you didnt answer my question so I will rephrase it. No matter what theory you want to use for the BB which amazes me everytime one doesnt work you come of with a different way for the creation of all of this except God. Sad. I want to know what ever caused the BB where did that come from? It had to come from somewhere. So either we have sceince which had a BB and something made that stuff which caused the BB which how do you explain that or you can accept that maybe something beyond science is at work here.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Just because it says void doesnt mean it is void of everything. You can say something is void of something specifly
Yes you can, but no it doesn't say that, does it?
|
No it does not specify exactly what it means but doesnt mean the Bible isnt being vague. The men who wrote the Bible were not writing a science textbook in case you didnt know.
| Quote: |
In what form did the light come from God? Did empty space just suddenly glow?
|
I dont have a answer for this one but again we are not dealing with a being who is affected by material or biological things. So if God who can will the universe into existence wants to have a spotlight out of nowhere then I guess it is possibel.
| Quote: |
Quote:
I would not say he set the earth spinning at this point considering the sun and moon were not created yet. As far as the light came from again I say God but if I had to guess I would say that he made light and then took it away to create the first day.
Then why does the account not say so?
|
I said what I said because the Sun and moon was not created yet so even if God set the earth to spin it would not work as it does today. I do not know where it the light came from but the earth spinning at this point would not make sense.
| Quote: |
Quote:
I am going to give you the translation straight from a hebrew to english Bible
[b]And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day[b/]
Ok say it says there was evening(night) and there was morning(beginning of the new day) all this says is that between these two times it starts the new day and finishs the old
So God switches on the magic light every 12 hours and then turns it off again? You see, if the light comes from God then we have to suppose that God is in one particular place (like the sun) for night and day to occur as the earth rotates on it's axis. If God is everywhere then this would not happen since the whole sky would be bright. If your theory is correct and God was shining a light from a particular place then heaven (the abode of God) must be where the Sun is today. It's an interesting theory but I would think that it would be a bit warm...
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
What this firmament would be the sky and atmosphere. This goes along with the flood where the Bible says there was water above the firmament(atmosphere) So what this means if you have the earth with water in it or on it then you have air and atmosphere and then above that is more water
And you think that makes sense?
|
Yes I do. If we are dealing with a supernatural God who can do all things and one of those things is for him to will water to be above the atmosphere then yes it is possible. As far as the flood goes I would have to think that if this event took place that more than the Bible would have a version of this story. Oh guess what there is. Around 300 diff storys or versions in diff cultures all have the same story of a global flood with one family or man surviving.
| Quote: |
So heaven is space? In that case the 'light' theory does not work does it? Since the whole sky would be bright wouldn't it?
|
Understand what I am saying when I say space I am refering to what we consider space to be today you know like outer space. And yes according to scripture the space was called Heaven. How would the light theory not work. If I say I dont know how God did it then I am not claiming anything now am I so what theory are you talking about unless your talking about the simple theory that God said let there be light and wow there was.
| Quote: |
Quote:
I have a question about this, do you yourself or perhaps you know someone who was there 4 billion years ago to see this primitive bacteria come about. You seem to state that as it is fact which it is not it has not been proven. So it doesnt contradict something you simply accept to be true.
Have you ever seen President Clinton or President Bush? Do you think they exist? Are you sure? Did you ever meet your great-great-grandparents? How do you know they existed? Perhaps you were never born?
|
What the hell is this? For a smart man this retort is retarded. I say this is not proven in with any facts. You made a statement as if it is fact so I asked how do you know? Since no one was there to watch it happen then how can you prove it?
| Quote: |
Quote:
Again something that is not proven. How do you explain petrified trees that are standing upright that is sticking thru 3 diff layers or stratas of time age periods.
Perhaps you can provide a reference for this and then I will be able to comment on it...
|
Fine here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil If this is not good enough for you then I will find you more.
| Quote: |
Nonsense. There was a perfectly good hebrew word for afternoon - tzohorayim - which is the pluralised form of 'lights'. The reason is given by a Rabbi as follows:Quote:
|
Well I was pretty sure they had a word for but that is not the point. A day is defined by 24 hour periods or one part day and the other night. There is no need what so ever to mention afternoon to desribe the length of a day. You bringing this up is just a poor attack.
| Quote: |
Quote:
So God is now making the Sun and Moon and stars. So yes light appeared before but never said it was the Sun. How it worked I guess only God knows.
Well, we already know that this light must have appeared from where the Sun is today...
|
No we dont, the light could of come from all directions or however God say fit. How it happened again only God knows.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Ok first even though the moon is not a light or star like the sun it still provides light at night or lesser light. The verse doesnt say He made a great fireball it just says a lesser light. Which works pretty good if you ask me kinda like a intelligent designer set it up. Also can imagine the moon being a star, It would be pretty hot here I bet. How did the grass and the trees appear thats a good question but considering we are looking at what the day before when he spoke them into existance I dont think its a problem.
The moon is not a light of any type - it doesn't shine, it merely reflects light. There is no way that grasses and trees could appear BEFORE sunlight...
|
Ok Look at the beginning of what I said and you said we both agreeded that the moon is not a light of any kind. However like I already said it PROVIDES a lesser light or reflection to make you happy at night. Now you say there is no way grasses and trees could appear before sunlight. If we are talking about the God who can will the world in to existence by merely saying so then I imagine God could of made plants and trees and the Sun the next day. He did not plant a seed and make it grow over time he said this will happen and it did. If I buy a plant and take it home and put it in the dark for 12-24 hours I am pretty sure that it will still be alive afterwards. God did not need the Sun to make the grass and trees.
So again realize that this is a sceince versus supernatural arguement. | DavidkChase wrote: |
| First off stars have NOT been observed being born and if you can offer a reference or proof then please share, if not then dont make such claims. Second you didnt answer my question so I will rephrase it. No matter what theory you want to use for the BB which amazes me everytime one doesnt work you come of with a different way for the creation of all of this except God. Sad. I want to know what ever caused the BB where did that come from? It had to come from somewhere. So either we have sceince which had a BB and something made that stuff which caused the BB which how do you explain that or you can accept that maybe something beyond science is at work here. |
On stellar birth. We can observe newly formed stars. The chances of looking in the right place just as one 'fires up' are remote, and it doesn't happen in a blink - it takes centuries. We have plenty of evidence, however, from observation of stellar nurseries.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex-20080416.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/birth/proto.html
I answered the question about the BB as well as it is possible to - the answer is that we don't yet know. M-theory provides one possible answer to 'what caused' the BB. I have not 'come up with a different way everytime one does not work' and to suggest otherwise is dishonest. I have tried to explain the current thinking on the matter, as well as it is possible to do so, to someone who knows no basic physics. Why would anything 'beyond' science? Just because science has not got there yet doesn't mean it never will.
| Quote: |
| Yes I do. If we are dealing with a supernatural God who can do all things and one of those things is for him to will water to be above the atmosphere then yes it is possible. As far as the flood goes I would have to think that if this event took place that more than the Bible would have a version of this story. Oh guess what there is. Around 300 diff storys or versions in diff cultures all have the same story of a global flood with one family or man surviving. |
And does that not tell you something? Like the Biblical account is based on folklore perhaps? The Sumerian flood predates the bible version....does that not indicate something to you? Like perhaps the bible account was lifted from other accounts?
There are pretty good reasons for thinking that the flood myth is based on some elements of reality (aside from the fact that it occurs so often). There is no evidence for a Global flood, of course, and the bible story is obviously mostly fiction, but there is a fair bit of evidence for a Black Sea flood event about 5600BCE which would certainly have been known about and, observed locally, must have appeared like a global flood. This would have been written-up by the Sumerians and later by the Hebrew authors of Genesis...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm
| Quote: |
| What the hell is this? For a smart man this retort is retarded. I say this is not proven in with any facts. You made a statement as if it is fact so I asked how do you know? Since no one was there to watch it happen then how can you prove it? |
And I ask you how you know your great great grandparents existed since you were not there to watch it happen. I notice that you don't answer. The only way you know is from records - written and verbal. The same applies to early life. The records we have are fossils, rather than words, but they are every bit as valid as evidence (probably more so, since written and verbal records can easily be forged, whereas fossils are much harder to fake). | Quote: |
| If this is not good enough for you then I will find you more. |
The wiki reference will do nicely - if you read it, it gives a completely consistent and logical explanation for the fossils which does not invoke a global flood.
| Quote: |
| Well I was pretty sure they had a word for but that is not the point. A day is defined by 24 hour periods or one part day and the other night. There is no need what so ever to mention afternoon to desribe the length of a day. You bringing this up is just a poor attack. |
Err...I didn't bring it up - you did. I just found it odd that evening and morning would be mentioned but no afternoon. You claimed that the word for afternoon did not originate until the 13th Century. Why would you say that? Why tell lies?
| Quote: |
| So again realize that this is a sceince versus supernatural arguement. |
No - its an argument about whether the Genesis account makes any sense, given what we know today. It is not purely science - logic also comes into it. The fact is that the Genesis account is not rational and requires the supernatural. Therefore you require faith - I agree. You also have to reject most of modern science in order to accept it as the 'truth', something which I find untenable.
The believer continually has to resort to 'God can do anything' as an explanation of the text. OK - that is all well and good but it begs the question why any account at all was given. Why not just say 'In the beginning God created everything'? Why give details which don't work? Why give an illogical sequence? If we are going to rely solely on faith then surely the details are just confusing and not needed....?
First off your second link does not work it crashes my IE every time. Second what you are really observing is the past so these formations you see is not stars being born today but from the past perhaps from creation?
| Quote: |
answered the question about the BB as well as it is possible to - the answer is that we don't yet know. M-theory provides one possible answer to 'what caused' the BB. I have not 'come up with a different way everytime one does not work' and to suggest otherwise is dishonest. I have tried to explain the current thinking on the matter, as well as it is possible to do so, to someone who knows no basic physics. Why would anything 'beyond' science? Just because science has not got there yet doesn't mean it never will.
|
I did not mean you persay so I do apologize what I meant is the scientific community. How many theorys are there now of the BB? God will never be one of them simply because He can not be proven.
You are right on one aspect it is not a matter of if but of when. The question is for who? What it all comes down to is maybe many of years from now evo may be proven right. Or Jesus will come and you will face God face to face and He will be proven right. The major diff though is that if I am wrong there is no consequence for me. You on the other hand due to your inablitly to accept the possiblity that there is more to life than this organic physical inhabitance we have you will suffer dire consequences. I would be rewarded for my faith. One of us is wrong and it wont be long before we both find out. Amazing how a person with your intelligence would be willing to take such a huge risk on spending eternity in hell. That is not a game I wish to play. For the record though that is not why I beleive what I beleive.
| Quote: |
And does that not tell you something? Like the Biblical account is based on folklore perhaps? The Sumerian flood predates the bible version....does that not indicate something to you? Like perhaps the bible account was lifted from other accounts?
There are pretty good reasons for thinking that the flood myth is based on some elements of reality (aside from the fact that it occurs so often). There is no evidence for a Global flood, of course, and the bible story is obviously mostly fiction, but there is a fair bit of evidence for a Black Sea flood event about 5600BCE which would certainly have been known about and, observed locally, must have appeared like a global flood. This would have been written-up by the Sumerians and later by the Hebrew authors of Genesis...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm |
Or maybe the Sumerians took from the Bible? There is plenty of evidence for the flood. According to your link there has been many floods in the Black Sea so how can that information be accurate.
| Quote: |
| And I ask you how you know your great great grandparents existed since you were not there to watch it happen. I notice that you don't answer. The only way you know is from records - written and verbal. The same applies to early life. The records we have are fossils, rather than words, but they are every bit as valid as evidence (probably more so, since written and verbal records can easily be forged, whereas fossils are much harder to fake). |
The same applies to early life? So what about Bible scrolls that can be shown to be as old as 2000 years or so or even up to 4000 years which have a complete history of certain people from the Bible. Oh but that record is not good enough for you.
| Quote: |
| The wiki reference will do nicely - if you read it, it gives a completely consistent and logical explanation for the fossils which does not invoke a global flood. |
I never said it had to do with flood it was a question I had for you. But I am glad it is good enough for you since it shows you dont need millions of years to have diff layers.
| Quote: |
Err...I didn't bring it up - you did. I just found it odd that evening and morning would be mentioned but no afternoon. You claimed that the word for afternoon did not originate until the 13th Century. Why would you say that? Why tell lies?
|
Ok first you did bring it up let me refresh your memory
| Quote: |
| Again with this aversion for afternoons...did God have a bad experience one afternoon? |
If I say to you I will be up tomorrow from morning to evening that should be fine since the afternoon is included within those two times. Why make jokes because God didnt say There was morning then afternoon then evening the 4th day. The afternoon in not necc and you know it. And yes the English word didnt come around to the 13th century so its not a lie but perhaps a poor responce from me.
| Quote: |
| No - its an argument about whether the Genesis account makes any sense, given what we know today. It is not purely science - logic also comes into it. The fact is that the Genesis account is not rational and requires the supernatural. Therefore you require faith - I agree. You also have to reject most of modern science in order to accept it as the 'truth', something which I find untenable. |
You are right at the beginning it was but when you brought science into your defense it became something else. The Bible of course will not be rational to a closed minded evo who cant beleive in anything that he cant prove or see with his own eyes except for evo that is. That only works for you because God isnt part of it. And what modern science would we have to reject to accept it? | DavidkChase wrote: |
| First off your second link does not work it crashes my IE every time. Second what you are really observing is the past so these formations you see is not stars being born today but from the past perhaps from creation? |
Works fine for me - try Firefox and ditch IE No - we know how old the stars are from their spectrums - there is a simple correlation between that and the luminosity which gives age using something called the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.
| Quote: |
| You are right on one aspect it is not a matter of if but of when. The question is for who? What it all comes down to is maybe many of years from now evo may be proven right. |
No, evolution is already proven right. The fossil record is simply one line of evidence. We have many many more. The theory of evolution is accepted as fact by all (except for creationists - and they would say that, wouldn't they?). | Quote: |
| Or Jesus will come and you will face God face to face and He will be proven right. The major diff though is that if I am wrong there is no consequence for me. You on the other hand due to your inablitly to accept the possiblity that there is more to life than this organic physical inhabitance we have you will suffer dire consequences. I would be rewarded for my faith. One of us is wrong and it wont be long before we both find out. Amazing how a person with your intelligence would be willing to take such a huge risk on spending eternity in hell. That is not a game I wish to play. For the record though that is not why I beleive what I beleive. |
But you ARE taking that chance aren't you? What if the Mormons were right all along? - that would mean no Celestial Kingdom for you. What if the Jews have it right? - no Garden of Eden for you. What about the Buddhists? - maybe you will reincarnate as an insect? Shouldn't you join them all to be sure ...
I'm amazed that a person of your intelligence does not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. After all, if you don't believe in IPU (may her holy hooves never be shod) then you risk an eternity of eating pepperoni pizzas - truly horrible. | Quote: |
| Or maybe the Sumerians took from the Bible? There is plenty of evidence for the flood. According to your link there has been many floods in the Black Sea so how can that information be accurate. |
Well the Sumerian myth can be reliably traced back to 2000BCE (there are still fragments of stone tablets with the story inscribed). The language used makes it probable that the myth goes even further back than that, but that is speculation so let's stick with what we know.
The Hebrew genesis account, according to creationists, dates from around 1500BCE. According to bible scholars it dates from 500BCE-1000BCE. Clearly the Sumerian myth predates the Genesis account.
As for evidence of 'the flood'. No, there is no evidence at all for a global flood. There is plenty of evidence of various catastrophic floods over history. Tha black sea is one example, there is also evidence for a great flood in the US - which created the 'scablands' after an ice-dam broke. There have been many such floods over history but the idea of a global flood is pure nonsense.
| Quote: |
| The same applies to early life? So what about Bible scrolls that can be shown to be as old as 2000 years or so or even up to 4000 years which have a complete history of certain people from the Bible. Oh but that record is not good enough for you. |
No it isn't. We have other records from 4000 years ago - why should the bible be taken as authoratitive? I also question whether ANY of the Bible can be shown to be 4000 years old - my understanding is that it is much younger than that. The earliest portions of the bible are thought to date back about 3300 years - though there is some dispute about that - certainly not as far back as 4000 years.
We know for sure that life was around millions of years ago - we have a fossil record which is consistent, we have genetic evidence which is consistent with the fossil record, we have a geological record which is consistent and various dating techniques which confirm the other lines of evidence. If the genesis account is literal then the world was formed a few thousand years ago. The suggestion is laughable and those who take it literally deserve to be laughed at..
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
| Quote: |
| I never said it had to do with flood it was a question I had for you. But I am glad it is good enough for you since it shows you dont need millions of years to have diff layers. |
Nobody ever claimed otherwise. Sedimentary layers can form quickly under certain circumstances - volcanic eruptions for example. | Quote: |
| And yes the English word didnt come around to the 13th century so its not a lie but perhaps a poor responce from me. |
The Bible was not written in English (or did you not know that?). You should also know that English as a language only dates back to the post Roman era. The standard written language was Latin (afternoon=post meridium). Before that we would have had Greek (afternoon=spe ra) for the New Testament, and Hebrew (afternoon=tzohorayim) for the Old Testament. The idea that either the NT or the OT had no available word for afternoon is wrong.
The account does not say 'morning then evening', it says (repeatedly) 'there was evening and then there was morning'. That does NOT include afternoon and is therefore NOT a 24 hour period. I know it meant a 24 hour period - I am perfectly willing to grant that - I just find it interesting that it only talks about evening and morning...
| Quote: |
| And what modern science would we have to reject to accept it? |
Err...let's see.
Particle physics (radiometric dating); cosmology (BB, stellar ages, creation and evolution); palaeontology (the fossil record); archaeology (records of pre-biblical civilisations); evolutionary biology; genetics; geology (rock strata, dating, formation); astronomy and astro-physics (galactic, stellar and planetary formation); physiology and anatomy (vestigeal and atavistic features); botony; and molecular, population and developmental biology.
(I've probably missed some, but those are the ones that come to mind).
Last edited by Bikerman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:31 pm; edited 3 times in totalJust wanted to clear and ask something - DavidkChase, you say the universe was made 15,000 years ago? 
Thanks for the DavidkChase and Chris debate. I know this was not the intention, but it had the affect on me of laughing like I have not laughed in a long time. Tears literally rolling. Probably very irrational of me, but I enjoyed it and thank you for that.
Hope you will continue as am enjoying this debate very much. 15,000 YEARS AGO?
If yes, I'm going to be the opposite of deanhills; I'm going to start crying! 
| Deanhills wrote: |
| Hope you will continue as am enjoying this debate very much. |
My main reason for engaging in debates like this is simple: I am concerned (as an educator) about the rise of fundamentalism within Christianity - specifically creationism. The reasons for this concern are not esoteric or abstract - they are very real. In the UK we have many schools that are now teaching a creationist syllabus. Over in the US, the Supreme Court had to get involved to stop it happening there.
As someone who has spent many years teaching, I find the teaching of creationist dogma as 'truth' to be abhorrent, and I will take any opportunity to express my opposition. These people are not just a harmless bunch of wackos, they seek to influence what I teach, and what children are taught, based on religious dogma. That is totally unacceptible.
I have never had a problem with teaching creationism and other religious creation myths in context - in Religious Studies classes. I have a major problem with teaching it as part of the science syllabus. This is a very real issue - many youngsters are being spoon-fed this nonsense at the expense of a proper scientific education and the consequences will be disasterous.
Even supporters of creationism like David admit that it is NOT scientific, it is FAITH - in fact most creationists have a real downer on science - so it is strange, is it not, that many creationists want to see creationism taught in the science syllabus as an alternative to evolutionary theory? Why would they want a non-science subject taught in science, instead of the proper place - religious studies? Go figure!
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/creationists.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2982933.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article739487.ece
http://oconallstreet.com/2007/10/21/dup-calls-for-creationism-on-science-syllabus/ | Quote: |
| No, evolution is already proven right. The fossil record is simply one line of evidence. We have many many more. The theory of evolution is accepted as fact by all (except for creationists - and they would say that, wouldn't they?). |
Now who is telling lies. It has not been proven right and the fossil record does no such thing. All the fossil record shows is what types of animals there either by species or kinds but there is no intermediate showing any kind of animal produces another kind or anything in between.
| Quote: |
But you ARE taking that chance aren't you? What if the Mormons were right all along? - that would mean no Celestial Kingdom for you. What if the Jews have it right? - no Garden of Eden for you. What about the Buddhists? - maybe you will reincarnate as an insect? Shouldn't you join them all to be sure ...
I'm amazed that a person of your intelligence does not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. After all, if you don't believe in IPU (may her holy hooves never be shod) then you risk an eternity of eating pepperoni pizzas - truly horrible. |
First off I am suprised you didnt use the flying spaghetti monster. Also I did say that that is not why I beleive what I beleive. I beleive because it makes sense to me such as evo makes sense to you. What I am saying though is there is a chance you are wrong between what I beleive and what you beleive and the concequences are hell. I would think that it would at least be worth checking out.
| Quote: |
Well the Sumerian myth can be reliably traced back to 2000BCE (there are still fragments of stone tablets with the story inscribed). The language used makes it probable that the myth goes even further back than that, but that is speculation so let's stick with what we know.
The Hebrew genesis account, according to creationists, dates from around 1500BCE. According to bible scholars it dates from 500BCE-1000BCE. Clearly the Sumerian myth predates the Genesis account.
As for evidence of 'the flood'. No, there is no evidence at all for a global flood. There is plenty of evidence of various catastrophic floods over history. Tha black sea is one example, there is also evidence for a great flood in the US - which created the 'scablands' after an ice-dam broke. There have been many such floods over history but the idea of a global flood is pure nonsense.
|
First off perhaps you would like to share where you get your info on when the flood was because what I see is that the flood was before 2000 bc or right around to it. If I need to I can go into further explanation showing it was not around 500-1000. Second I beleive there is plenty of proof for the flood which we can get into later.
| Quote: |
No it isn't. We have other records from 4000 years ago - why should the bible be taken as authoratitive? I also question whether ANY of the Bible can be shown to be 4000 years old - my understanding is that it is much younger than that. The earliest portions of the bible are thought to date back about 3300 years - though there is some dispute about that - certainly not as far back as 4000 years.
We know for sure that life was around millions of years ago - we have a fossil record which is consistent, we have genetic evidence which is consistent with the fossil record, we have a geological record which is consistent and various dating techniques which confirm the other lines of evidence. If the genesis account is literal then the world was formed a few thousand years ago. The suggestion is laughable and those who take it literally deserve to be laughed at..
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
|
I suggest this be the first part of our debate whcih is you proving the world is billions of years old or that we had life millions of years old. For the record since Blood was asking I beleive the world is between 6-8 thousand years old not 15. As far as that goes I am not sure when the first peice was found and what it was dated back to but I would be sure its more than 500bc.
| Quote: |
| Nobody ever claimed otherwise. Sedimentary layers can form quickly under certain circumstances - volcanic eruptions for example. |
Perhaps you didnt but I know alot of evos would like creations to continue to think that it would take millions of years. I have read articles when some scientists discovered this could happen they bring it up to evos who claim "Oh yes we knew all along" In other words us creations can be out of the loop untill we figure it out on our own.
| Quote: |
The Bible was not written in English (or did you not know that?). You should also know that English as a language only dates back to the post Roman era. The standard written language was Latin (afternoon=post meridium). Before that we would have had Greek (afternoon=spe ra) for the New Testament, and Hebrew (afternoon=tzohorayim) for the Old Testament. The idea that either the NT or the OT had no available word for afternoon is wrong.
The account does not say 'morning then evening', it says (repeatedly) 'there was evening and then there was morning'. That does NOT include afternoon and is therefore NOT a 24 hour period. I know it meant a 24 hour period - I am perfectly willing to grant that - I just find it interesting that it only talks about evening and morning...
|
If you knew it meant a 24 hour period why throw a hissy fit. I mean come on your complaing cause it only mentions evening and morning. First of God had no need to mention afternoon as I already said. By your logic maybe he should of mentioned every type of way to decribe every time of the day. Mid-morning, Late-Morning, Afternoon, Early-Evening, etc...
You get the picture.
| Quote: |
Err...let's see.
Particle physics (radiometric dating); cosmology (BB, stellar ages, creation and evolution); palaeontology (the fossil record); archaeology (records of pre-biblical civilisations); evolutionary biology; genetics; geology (rock strata, dating, formation); astronomy and astro-physics (galactic, stellar and planetary formation); physiology and anatomy (vestigeal and atavistic features); botony; and molecular, population and developmental biology |
We can all go into these but lets deal with the age of the earth first.I dont mean to double post but I want to answer this.
| Quote: |
Even supporters of creationism like David admit that it is NOT scientific, it is FAITH - in fact most creationists have a real downer on science - so it is strange, is it not, that many creationists want to see creationism taught in the science syllabus as an alternative to evolutionary theory? Why would they want a non-science subject taught in science, instead of the proper place - religious studies? Go figure!
|
I admit that yes part of the Bible and what God does is not scientific. That is fine by me. Non-beleivers say we created God to explain what we dont understand. I say that you deny God simply because you cant understand what you cant explain. There are all kinds of things happening right now in the world that cannot be explained by science. Even a man I know was cured of cancer after being prayed for after church. One week he had 3 cancerous spots on his spine which the doctors said they could not help him. After he was prayed for he went back for tests and they said the spots were gone as if they were never there. Now it doenst matter if you want to give credit to God the point is science cannot explain what happened to him. When you can accept that such things are possible without a scientific explanation then perhaps what I see will make more sense.
I do not deny science for that matter. If Bikerman can prove that the world is billions of years old I will accept it. The only reason I would want creation taught next to evo is not to be in the sceince department but evo is one way of explaining how the world and humans got here. If that is the class not some science class but the origin of the world they yes creation should be taught as well. If you can prove and make evolution a fact whcih i mean the BB and us coming from monkeys then fine take creation out of schools. But as long as both are not not proven you should be able to teach both theorys and let the studen choose.
So I guess I am a wacko but one more thing your just a teacher Bikerman its not your place to decide what is taught to other people. Perhaps your own children but not mine. I dont know how you can say it is dsasterous. You look at my country(US) and ever since we took God out of school you can see that every possible danger or thing we had to worry about skyrocketed. So I guess its better to take God out and let pregnancy and drugs and shootings go up? | DavidkChase wrote: |
| Now who is telling lies. It has not been proven right and the fossil record does no such thing. All the fossil record shows is what types of animals there either by species or kinds but there is no intermediate showing any kind of animal produces another kind or anything in between. |
I try not to tell lies - I'm not a creationist.
As far as intermediate fossils are concerned, that is just another lie - there are thousands of intermediate fossils. Here's a few
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
| Quote: |
| First off I am suprised you didnt use the flying spaghetti monster. Also I did say that that is not why I beleive what I beleive. I beleive because it makes sense to me such as evo makes sense to you. What I am saying though is there is a chance you are wrong between what I beleive and what you beleive and the concequences are hell. I would think that it would at least be worth checking out. |
I did check it out - for many years. It is as ridiculous as other creation myths. Of course there is a chance I am wrong - there is also a good chance you are wrong. In fact there is no evidence at all that I am wrong (apart from the Genesis account itself) whereas there is a wealth of evidence to show that you are wrong. I have supplied my evidence in the form of links, quotations and biblical references. You have supplied nothing. | Quote: |
| First off perhaps you would like to share where you get your info on when the flood was because what I see is that the flood was before 2000 bc or right around to it. If I need to I can go into further explanation showing it was not around 500-1000. Second I beleive there is plenty of proof for the flood which we can get into later. |
Why is it that you don't even know what YOU believe? Why do I have to tell you what you believe? Seems odd...anyway, let's progress..
According to YOUR religious tradition, Moses wrote the Genesis account. (Mark 10:3; Luke 24:27; John 1:17). Moses can be dated (from the book of Exodus) to being born in 1393 BCE. Some scholars doubt this and put his birth earlier - around 1600BCE. Therefore Moses (if he did indeed exist) wrote the Genesis account somewhere around those dates. Since the Genesis account includes the flood myth, then the flood myth was also written down after 1393 BCE (or, according to some scholars around 1513 BCE), unless you DON'T believe that Moses wrote the account of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses
Now, as for when the flood is supposed to have occurred - that is normally calculated chronologically by following the Genesis account, and most scholars put it around 2300BCE. Unfortunately there is no evidence of ANY major flood at that period. The Black Sea flooding would have been much much earlier.
Finally, as for the real age of the Genesis account (assuming, as most Bible scholars do, that Moses didn't in fact write Genesis) then we have, as I said, datings of 500BCE - 1000BCE. | wiki wrote: |
| Structurally, Genesis consists of a "primeval history" (Genesis 1-11) and cycles of Patriarchal stories. The narrative of Joseph stands apart from these. It appears to have reached its final form in the 5th century BC, with a previous history of composition reaching back possibly to the 10th century. Religious Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that the book has its origins in divine revelation. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis
| Quote: |
| I suggest this be the first part of our debate whcih is you proving the world is billions of years old or that we had life millions of years old. For the record since Blood was asking I beleive the world is between 6-8 thousand years old not 15. As far as that goes I am not sure when the first peice was found and what it was dated back to but I would be sure its more than 500bc. |
Which is why I laugh at you. The idea that the world was formed 6-8 thousand years ago is one of the stupidest beliefs I have ever come across - right up there with the real classics like alien abduction. | Quote: |
| Perhaps you didnt but I know alot of evos would like creations to continue to think that it would take millions of years. I have read articles when some scientists discovered this could happen they bring it up to evos who claim "Oh yes we knew all along" In other words us creations can be out of the loop untill we figure it out on our own. |
I haven't a clue what that gibberish means. We know that some sedimentary layers are older than others from geological study and radiometric dating...this is not exactly new. As for being 'left out of the loop' - that is your own choice. Information on science is available to anyone who wishes to read/listen/see it. If you choose not to do so then you can hardly blame scientists. | Quote: |
If you knew it meant a 24 hour period why throw a hissy fit. I mean come on your complaing cause it only mentions evening and morning. First of God had no need to mention afternoon as I already said. By your logic maybe he should of mentioned every type of way to decribe every time of the day. Mid-morning, Late-Morning, Afternoon, Early-Evening, etc...
You get the picture. |
First you say 'he' mentioned morning then evening (he didn't - the bible has it the other way around) and now you put up a straw man argument about mentioning particular segments of the day. The fact is that afternoon is never mentioned - either explicitly or implicitly. I don't know why, which is why I asked the original question. Telling lies about what the bible actually says is not an answer. | Quote: |
| We can all go into these but lets deal with the age of the earth first. |
I seriously doubt you can go into them, based on your ignorance to date. If you don't even know the basics of palaeontology or evolutionary theory, and you seriously think the world is 6-8 thousand years old, then I doubt you have anything useful to say on most scientific subjects.
As far as the age of the Earth - it is 4.55 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total | DavidkChase wrote: |
| I admit that yes part of the Bible and what God does is not scientific. That is fine by me. Non-beleivers say we created God to explain what we dont understand. I say that you deny God simply because you cant understand what you cant explain. There are all kinds of things happening right now in the world that cannot be explained by science. Even a man I know was cured of cancer after being prayed for after church. One week he had 3 cancerous spots on his spine which the doctors said they could not help him. After he was prayed for he went back for tests and they said the spots were gone as if they were never there. Now it doenst matter if you want to give credit to God the point is science cannot explain what happened to him. When you can accept that such things are possible without a scientific explanation then perhaps what I see will make more sense. |
Anecdotes are evidence of nothing. Unless you can substantiate your claims then they are just verbiage.
| Quote: |
| I do not deny science for that matter. |
Yes you do - repeatedly. You also misrepresent it and display astonishing ignorance about it. | Quote: |
| If Bikerman can prove that the world is billions of years old I will accept it. |
No you won't because you don't understand what evidence means and you have no idea what scientific theory is. | Quote: |
| The only reason I would want creation taught next to evo is not to be in the sceince department but evo is one way of explaining how the world and humans got here. If that is the class not some science class but the origin of the world they yes creation should be taught as well. |
Evolution is taught in BIOLOGY which is SCIENCE. Creation myths are taught in religious education/studies which is NOT SCIENCE. What is the problem? | Quote: |
| If you can prove and make evolution a fact whcih i mean the BB and us coming from monkeys then fine take creation out of schools. But as long as both are not not proven you should be able to teach both theorys and let the studen choose. |
What has evolution got to do with the BB? We don't come from Monkeys - this is what I mean - you don't even know WHAT evolutionary theory states and yet you think you are competent to comment on it. Here's the news - you are not. Perhaps if your education had been better then you would know a bit more about evolution - that is my whole point really. | Quote: |
| So I guess I am a wacko |
Yep, I agree. Or you could use the term 'delusional' which is perhaps kinder.
| Quote: |
| but one more thing your just a teacher Bikerman its not your place to decide what is taught to other people. Perhaps your own children but not mine. |
Actually it is (at least partly) my place to decide - that's why I'm called a teacher and you are not. That's why I studied education and got my teaching degree - that entitles me to teach.
Teachers in secondary schools work to a national curriculum and decide how that curriculum will be taught. Creationism (thank goodness) is NOT on the national curriculum. This is why it is only taught (as science) here in independant schools that 'opt out'. If you don't want your children to be taught proper science that is fine - you can send them to a faith school or other private institution.
| Quote: |
| I dont know how you can say it is dsasterous. You look at my country(US) and ever since we took God out of school you can see that every possible danger or thing we had to worry about skyrocketed. So I guess its better to take God out and let pregnancy and drugs and shootings go up? |
Garbage. When was God taken out of school? Go on, give me a date - when did the policy change on what is taught and what is not taught? To the best of my knowledge science has always been taught in science classes, religion in religion classes and the US state system has always been secular in nature. If you are saying that this is wrong and it somehow changed at a point which coincides with an increase in social evils then let's see your evidence for this...when did it change?
It is disasterous precisely because it leads to the sort of confused nonsense we see here. Scientific ignorance coupled with religious certainty - a sure-fire recipe for disaster.
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:59 pm; edited 5 times in total | DavidkChase wrote: |
| I dont understand what it is you have a problem with here? Is it that the stars can be created after the earth and Heaven. Considering you probally believe that stars are still being created today even though it has never been observed. Or is your problem that the Bible doesnt have the Earth, Sun, Univers, Stars all created at the same moment where (the big bang) all the matter and energy in space came together and went boom. A question, where did all of that matter and energy come from if the big bang is your "The beginning" |
HASN"T BEEN OBSERVED? Now the famous hasn't been observed argument,
Where you there when god created everything? No so by your logic god didn't create anything either. By you logic the hollocaust didn't happen because you weren't there. Heck just about all human history before 1900 didn't happen
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| (about light)Easy it came from God. Which you may not like that answer but if you are going to come and try to argue about something of the supernatural expect to get a answer that is not scientific. |
So god was a light bulb?
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| (about grass and trees)I have a question about this, do you yourself or perhaps you know someone who was there 4 billion years ago to see this primitive bacteria come about. You seem to state that as it is fact which it is not it has not been proven. So it doesnt contradict something you simply accept to be true. |
He accepted it because we can find those fossils of those bacteria. Proof enough.
Still not convinced?
http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0FB1F085BD950D0F
| DavidkChase wrote: |
I dont mean to double post but I want to answer this.
| Quote: | Even supporters of creationism like David admit that it is NOT scientific, it is FAITH - in fact most creationists have a real downer on science - so it is strange, is it not, that many creationists want to see creationism taught in the science syllabus as an alternative to evolutionary theory? Why would they want a non-science subject taught in science, instead of the proper place - religious studies? Go figure!
|
I admit that yes part of the Bible and what God does is not scientific. That is fine by me. Non-beleivers say we created God to explain what we dont understand. I say that you deny God simply because you cant understand what you cant explain. |
What?!!
We can't explain it so we can't understand it, so we don't believe in god? No we don't believe in god because there is no proof for god.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| There are all kinds of things happening right now in the world that cannot be explained by science. Even a man I know was cured of cancer after being prayed for after church. One week he had 3 cancerous spots on his spine which the doctors said they could not help him. After he was prayed for he went back for tests and they said the spots were gone as if they were never there. Now it doenst matter if you want to give credit to God the point is science cannot explain what happened to him. When you can accept that such things are possible without a scientific explanation then perhaps what I see will make more sense. |
And how do I know that is true? Maybe the docters where mistaking and it was not cancer? Dunno please link.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| I do not deny science for that matter. If Bikerman can prove that the world is billions of years old I will accept it. |
Would you accept it if someone else proved it? Well scientists are pretty shure its quite old 4.5 billion years, they have facts that support it, radiation.
So will you accept it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| The only reason I would want creation taught next to evo is not to be in the sceince department but evo is one way of explaining how the world and humans got here. If that is the class not some science class but the origin of the world they yes creation should be taught as well. If you can prove and make evolution a fact whcih i mean the BB and us coming from monkeys then fine take creation out of schools. But as long as both are not not proven you should be able to teach both theorys and let the studen choose. |
Evolution is a scientific theory that means it is almost certain. There is enough to prove it. So creation shouldn't be taught in schools you admit. Also creation is higly UN scientific andif we go to teach creation? What kind Christian or the FSM way? Also we can reasonaly understand how life existed however this has not completely been tested and fully explained.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| So I guess I am a wacko but one more thing your just a teacher Bikerman its not your place to decide what is taught to other people. Perhaps your own children but not mine. |
No But the Law does and it states that the state is secular. And if bikerman is a teacher he HAS something to say on that matter.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| I dont know how you can say it is disasterous. You look at my country(US) and ever since we took God out of school you can see that every possible danger or thing we had to worry about skyrocketed. So I guess its better to take God out and let pregnancy and drugs and shootings go up? |
Are they even related are there studies done? Well a lot of country's in Europe where already secular and saw the same rise it's just a coincidence. On the other hand as already discussed (in another topic) religious people more often end up in prison. There was a reserch done to see what inmates believed.
back then
90 % where religious
10 was atheist
99.8 % of the inmates where religious
00.2 % where atheist. There has some actual research been done on this. So really that spins the table doesn't it? | Quote: |
Anecdotes are evidence of nothing. Unless you can substantiate your claims then they are just verbiage.
|
I dont care if you beleive me or not that fact is that I do beleive what I observed. Could the man be lying sure but considering it was in a room of beleivers and he was not yet then I dont see what purpose he would of lied for.
| Quote: |
| Yes you do - repeatedly. You also misrepresent it and display astonishing ignorance about it |
What have you shown me proof of that I have denied. Im stilling waiting for some proof on the age of the earth.
| Quote: |
| No you won't because you don't understand what evidence means and you have no idea what scientific theory is. |
Evidence for me is for you to proof it with facts. Either studys that have been done or tests either way If it can be proven as a fact I will beleive it. Just because you have some support for something isnt going to sway me from what I beleive. Considering what I beleive hasnt got any facts should show you I can beleive in something when its still just supported by diff information.
I also know what the scientific theory is.
I took this from a website but I will agree with it 100%
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
That may be what evo may be but doesnt make it true.
| Quote: |
| Evolution is taught in BIOLOGY which is SCIENCE. Creation myths are taught in religious education/studies which is NOT SCIENCE. What is the problem |
You attack me although I already told you that if the class is just a science class then no creation should not be there. But if I have a class called Origin of Everything then both should taught and again the student can decide which he or she wants to beleive.
| Quote: |
| What has evolution got to do with the BB? We don't come from Monkeys - this is what I mean - you don't even know WHAT evolutionary theory states and yet you think you are competent to comment on it. Here's the news - you are not. Perhaps if your education had been better then you would know a bit more about evolution - that is my whole point really. |
First off where would you be with evo without the BB. If you simply want to say we evolved from a single-cell organism where did that come from? You explain that with the BB. I also know that there is 5 diff kinds of evo and the only one can prove is micro. Dont assume that Im as dumb as you think. And no my education isnt as good as yours but guess what Im not that impressed with yours. Granted I will give you props on the dedication it took to get there and I do admire your vast knowledge on all sorts of things. But still you seem to have blond moments like attacking the afternoon thing.
| Quote: |
Actually it is (at least partly) my place to decide - that's why I'm called a teacher and you are not. That's why I studied education and got my teaching degree - that entitles me to teach.
Teachers in secondary schools work to a national curriculum and decide how that curriculum will be taught. Creationism (thank goodness) is NOT on the national curriculum. This is why it is only taught (as science) here in independant schools that 'opt out'. If you don't want your children to be taught proper science that is fine - you can send them to a faith school or other private institution.
|
Thats right partly. You have no bearings on what I teach my children nor do I on yours. But lets be honest you could have a huge majority of educators lets say to beleive in creation what would be the opinion on what to teach there. Or you could have it where they beleive evo. I have had plent of teachers that were christians. Look at Ben Stien tell me hes a stupid man I dont think so and he beleives in God. You may be able to give some imput but overall it is not your decision. Just because the majority decides evo is the best to teach doesnt make it right. The main thing is we wont know till one is proven. Which will either be when sceince can prove evo with facts or you stand before God. One of those things will happen we just are polar opposites.
| Quote: |
Garbage. When was God taken out of school? Go on, give me a date - when did the policy change on what is taught and what is not taught?
|
I can show studys but when I get back from work.this is to answer klaw which I am short on time so I will respond on what I can
| Quote: |
What?!!
We can't explain it so we can't understand it, so we don't believe in god? No we don't believe in god because there is no proof for god.
|
Let me reword this. You deny God because you cant explain what you dont understand. In other words because science cant explain the supernatural or God you simply leave it at that and say that it can happen or exist because we are not advance to explain it or it simply can not be explained no matter what by science. So i guess if man cant explain what God can do then it didnt happen.
| Quote: |
And how do I know that is true? Maybe the docters where mistaking and it was not cancer? Dunno please link.
|
It is not something I can link to this is a person I met personally. I highly doubt it was a missdiagnosis considering this was the third time he had cancer which science has cured him before the first 2 times with kemo or kimo I am not sure how to spell it.
The rest like your links I will comment on when I have more time in about 12 hours from now. OK - this is going to be long, because there is a lot to deal with...
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| I dont care if you beleive me or not that fact is that I do beleive what I observed. Could the man be lying sure but considering it was in a room of beleivers and he was not yet then I dont see what purpose he would of lied for. |
Believe what you like - it is not evidence of anything. You keep saying you want me to prove things to you and yet you never offer anything in the way of evidence for your own statements. An anecdotal story is not evidence. I could easily say that I had seen or done all sorts of things which prove my point. I would not do so, because I would not expect you to believe my word without some evidence. In a similar manner I do not accept your word on this without some evidence.
Let's assume, however, that what you say really happened, and happened as you describe it. Cancer is a tricky disease, it frequently goes into remission for no apparent reason, and it doesn't seem to matter whether the person 'believes' or not. Unfortunately, the prognosis is not usually so good in these cases - most often it will return. The fact that we don't exactly know what causes these spontaneous remissions is interesting - work goes on - but it doesn't have any bearing on religion or belief (unless you can show some link - something which nobody else has been able to do up until now). We have dealt with the effectiveness (or I should say non-effectiveness) of prayer in another thread.
Just because science cannot explain some things (yet), that isn't a good reason to turn to religion for the answer (religion only ever has the one answer - God did it). It's a good reason to keep looking for the real answer. | Quote: |
| What have you shown me proof of that I have denied. Im stilling waiting for some proof on the age of the earth. |
I have provided you with numerous links and sources. You either haven't read them or haven't understood them.
One again, here's some stuff for you to read and digest...:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
| Quote: |
| Evidence for me is for you to proof it with facts. |
LOL..no it isn't. Evidence for you is what is written in the bible....that's it. If you wanted facts then there are hundreds of facts in the links above. | Quote: |
| Either studys that have been done or tests either way If it can be proven as a fact I will beleive it. Just because you have some support for something isnt going to sway me from what I beleive. Considering what I beleive hasnt got any facts should show you I can beleive in something when its still just supported by diff information. |
You said it - 'Considering what I believe hasn't got any facts..'. That is it, right there! One the one hand you say you will believe if I show you studies or tests. I've provided a raft of studies and tests. Then you say '...support for something isn't going to sway me from what I believe'.
Shurely shome mishtake...
Why not actually read some of the evidence for yourself? Here's some for evolution (I've already provided enough on the age of the Earth). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
| Quote: |
| I also know what the scientific theory is. |
Really? Then why do you keep talking in terms of 'proof' and 'truth' when you obviously know that science functions by refutation and is formulated as theories? Here's an example.- Hypothesis - the world is between 6 and 8 thousand years old.
- Refutation - if a rock sample can be shown to be more than 8 thousand years old then the hypothesis is refuted.
- Test - we collect rock samples and use different radiometric dating techniques to determine an age and a limit of acuracy (ie an error range) for each sample.
- Result - we find earth rocks which vary in age up to about 4 billion years old
- Can this be repeated? Yes, consistently.
- Conclusion - the hypothesis is wrong and must be rejected.
That is just one way to test the hypothesis - we could propose many other different methods but the thing is, if a hypothesis fails - even just once - then it has to be either changed or ditched.
Common creationist objections to radiometric dating.
a) Sometimes a particular method does not work. True - so what? When it does work, or other methods are used, the answers are consistent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#failed
b) Decay rates might have changed over time. Nonsense.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#constant
c) Contamination may have occurred with the samples. Nope. Isochron methods have a built-in check for contamination.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#contamination
| Quote: |
I took this from a website but I will agree with it 100%
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. |
Yep - that's not a bad description. | Quote: |
| That may be what evo may be but doesnt make it true. |
But there is nothing that would make it true for you, is there? You prefer to believe that the world is 6-8,000 years old and other assorted gibberish (for which, of course, you have zero evidence - not a jot - apart from a mythical account in the bible which is inconsistent and which is not even accepted by most Christians nowadays - they grew out of it). | Quote: |
| You attack me although I already told you that if the class is just a science class then no creation should not be there. But if I have a class called Origin of Everything then both should taught and again the student can decide which he or she wants to beleive. |
But there is no such class in any school I know of, so why make hypothetical cases? Evolution is taught in Biology. Some creationists tried (and still try) to get creationism taught in Biology. If you don't want that, then fine, I'm glad, neither do I. | Quote: |
| First off where would you be with evo without the BB. |
No different to where we currently are - evolution is the only explanation for the origin of species that makes any sense. | Quote: |
| If you simply want to say we evolved from a single-cell organism where did that come from? You explain that with the BB. |
But that is a separate issue. Evolution works whether the BB is correct or not. It works for steady-state universes, it works for 'bounce' type cosmological theories. There is no particular link between evolution and cosmological theory - they stand alone on their own merits. Physicists like Lee Smolin have applied 'natural selection' theory to cosmology and come up with different theories - such as Black Hole selection - but that is beyond the scope of this discussion - the fact remains that whatever cosmological model you pick, evolution still works as the best theory for the origin of species.
Here's the dope on earth and evolution:
About 12 billion years ago the Milky Way comes together. About 4.56 - 4.6 billion years ago our Solar System forms and the Sun fires-up. About 4.55 billion years ago the earth forms from the rock and dust particles left over when the Sun fired-up. About 3.5 - 4 billion years ago the first life appears. Only now does evolution kick in. Over the next few billion years evolution drives speciation until we arrive at where we are today.
That, in a nutshell, is what we know about how we got here. It is not a complete picture - we still don't know the exact dates (there is thought to be a 1% error margin for formation of Earth and a larger error margin for the appearance of the first life), and we don't know how the first life actually formed. What we DO know is that it didn't happen all at once and it damn well sure didn't happen a few thousand years ago. | Quote: |
| I also know that there is 5 diff kinds of evo and the only one can prove is micro. Dont assume that Im as dumb as you think. |
It was you who agreed that you are a wacko. I don't say you are dumb - I say you are scientifically ignorant - and you are, as that last passage demonstrates. There are NOT 5 types of evolution. That myth comes from right-wing conservative creationist sites like http://www.conservapedia.com/Types_of_evolution
It's crap - laughable crap.
Speciation has been repeatedly demonstrated in the lab (you would probably call speciation 'macro-evolution'), so it is another lie to say that only 'micro evolution' has been proven. You really should read some science rather than creationist tripe. | Quote: |
| And no my education isnt as good as yours but guess what Im not that impressed with yours. Granted I will give you props on the dedication it took to get there and I do admire your vast knowledge on all sorts of things. But still you seem to have blond moments like attacking the afternoon thing. |
Your education is something you can do something about - try doing some serious reading on the issues (evolution, cosmology etc) and your education will improve. I'm not really bothered whether my education impresses you or not - it doesn't even impress me, there are lots of things I don't know. The thing is, when I find something I don't know, I try to learn about it, I don't adopt a position of 'it's not in the bible therefore it is probably wrong'. Learning science is much more difficult than simply believing some stuff you were taught as a kid, that supposedly comes from the bible. You have to actually think for yourself, examine the evidence, and form your own opinions.
The 'afternoon thing' was supposed to be a light-hearted comment in what was a relatively light hearted posting. You decided to launch into a defence of the bible by misquoting it (the bible), and I merely corrected your misquotes. | Quote: |
| Thats right partly. You have no bearings on what I teach my children nor do I on yours. But lets be honest you could have a huge majority of educators lets say to beleive in creation what would be the opinion on what to teach there. |
If you send your children to a state school then people like me DO have a bearing on what your kids are taught. If you don't then obviously we don't - that would depend on the teachers employed at that particular institution. | Quote: |
| Or you could have it where they beleive evo. I have had plent of teachers that were christians. Look at Ben Stien tell me hes a stupid man I dont think so and he beleives in God. |
Believing in God is not the issue. Creationism is the issue - specifically teaching creationism as 'fact'. I don't say creationists like Stein are stupid - I say they are scientifically ignorant - he is. I also say he is a liar. He co-wrote and starred in a creationist propogandist film called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" which contains numerous lies, half-truths, out of context quotes and interviews, and pseudo-scientific bullcrap. The idea of Ben Stein as a teacher is laughable (literally - he appears in 'Ferris Bueller's Big Day Out' as the boring economics teacher who speaks in the monotonous voice). He has done some lecturing - for sure - but he is first and foremost a lawyer and an entertainer, who takes it upon himself to comment on things he doesn't understand, and expects his views to be taken seriously, for some reason. I don't take him seriously and neither do any scientists I know. If you want to know how a car engine works would you ask a lawyer or would you ask a mechanic? If you want to know about evolutionary theory then would you ask a lawyer or would you ask an evolutionary biologist? | Quote: |
| You may be able to give some imput but overall it is not your decision. Just because the majority decides evo is the best to teach doesnt make it right. The main thing is we wont know till one is proven. Which will either be when sceince can prove evo with facts or you stand before God. One of those things will happen we just are polar opposites. |
Evolution is taught because it is the only rational explanation for the origin of species. It has nothing to do with 'majority' - as can be easily demonstrated. In the US, for example, according to some surveys 60% of people believe the account of Noah's Ark. That is a majority. It is not taught as fact because it ISN'T. Evolution is taught because it is supported by a vast amount of evidence which makes it as close to 'fact' as any scientific theory can be.
You keep assuming that evolution is somehow incompatible with a belief in God - it isn't. The majority of Christians accept evolution as fact. | Quote: |
| I can show studys but when I get back from work. |
I look forward to it (but I seriously doubt it). I am digesting at the moment but Bikerman perhaps you can answer me a question which I posted here http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-94675.html#787541 also in the meantime here is something for you to digest. http://www.israelofgod.org/genesis.htm Ok this first...
| DavidkChase wrote: |
this is to answer klaw which I am short on time so I will respond on what I can
| Quote: | What?!!
We can't explain it so we can't understand it, so we don't believe in god? No we don't believe in god because there is no proof for god.
|
Let me reword this. You deny God because you cant explain what you dont understand. In other words because science cant explain the supernatural or God you simply leave it at that and say that it can happen or exist because we are not advance to explain it or it simply can not be explained no matter what by science. So i guess if man cant explain what God can do then it didnt happen. |
No no no... sigh. What you say is slightly gibberisch. But I don't believe in god since there is no proof for the existence of god. Final, this is what most Atheists convinced them to be so. There is no proof for the supernatural.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | And how do I know that is true? Maybe the docters where mistaking and it was not cancer? Dunno please link.
|
It is not something I can link to this is a person I met personally. I highly doubt it was a missdiagnosis considering this was the third time he had cancer which science has cured him before the first 2 times with kemo or kimo I am not sure how to spell it.
The rest like your links I will comment on when I have more time in about 12 hours from now. |
Okay sorry but because you say that doesn't convince me, ill look forward to your responses.
O and the only place where creation should be taught is during "Religious classes" and the teachers should never state that evolution etc. is wrong.
I have answerd the first question bad it shows bad creationism,
on the second I'm not going to waste my time it's two groups of people who think the bible holds the truth and thats where I leave.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:08 pm; edited 1 time in total Typical creationist.
You completely ignore anything you don't like and move onto something else. Instead of moving on then why not spend a bit more time digesting and provide the material you promised to provide in the last posting.
You post questions which you don't understand and have simply copied from some creationist site. I bet you know absolutely nothing about Rubidium-strontium dating (an isochronic technique) and I bet you got that question from one of the creationist sites. Instead of immediately looking for dodgy ways to attack radiodating why don't you spend your time actually reading up on how it works? (A quick google would give loads of sites worth reading).
Anyone can do a quick google search and turn up creationist sites attacking all sorts of science. The challenge is to read the actual science itself (or at least honest commentary on the science) rather than the twisted ramblings of deluded liars.
Anyway - the question is FULLY addressed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
(But if you had actually read the links I provided you would have seen this already since it is referenced several times).
[edit - Indi has also answered the main point of this in the science forum].
The israelofgod site is a lot of gibberish. It tries to justify both Gap Creationism and Young Earth Creationist by reference to the bible only. In other words it spends 3 pages justifying a particular interpretation of the bible by...wait for it...interpreting the bible. For crying out loud - do you know what a tautology is?
The article is also full of errors, simple minded, poorly written and dishonest. Look at the way the author continually changes translations of the bible to prove a particular point - each time choosing an interpretation which is closest to the point being made. We call that data shaping. What conclusion does he reach? Brace yourself for a masterpiece...
Everyone is right (Gap creationists, Young Earth creationists - the whole lot of contradictory views are all right (if you reinterpret the bible in a completely ridiculous manner to mean almost the opposite of what it actually says).
You might want to spend your time reading this crap (instead of the carefully selected, and directly relevant references, which I took the trouble of preparing for you - after you asked me to) but I certainly don't want to waste more time on it. It isn't worth the effort it would take to completely debunk it - because it essentially says nothing worth saying...
Last edited by Bikerman on Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:36 pm; edited 6 times in total | DavidkChase wrote: |
| First off where would you be with evo without the BB. If you simply want to say we evolved from a single-cell organism where did that come from? You explain that with the BB. |
Noone does that, about origin of life: abiogenesis
It's like going to a classical concert:
You learn different things about it, (evolution explains diversity of life)
however not where the instruments came from. (evolution does explain where it came from)
Have you seen bens steins expelled or something? He states that evolution doesn't explain:
astronomy, origin of life, stellar forming, big bang etc. Well yes evolution doesn't explain that, but it was never meant to do that.
To go on about the concert example:
You will learn very little to nothing about rock, metal, indi (the music type, not the the person), reggea etc.etc.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| I also know that there is 5 diff kinds of evo and the only one can prove is micro. |
? what. very well lets just say those are other "evolutions." are evolutions:
1. Cosmic Evolution.
The big bang theory. Most thing point that this DID happen, It is a well tested SCIENTIFIC theory, scientist or atheists didn't suck it out of their thumb.
2. Stellar and Planetary Evolution.
We got model explaining how earth came into existence from "scratch". And by there are theories about the existence of planets and stars, real scientific theories.
3. Abiogenesis.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
After 2:40 it gets interesting, however it might be refreshing for you to see the whole video.
Still NOT convinced?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo&feature=related
4. Biological Evolution.
Wich is already fully discussed and if you just don't be biased you'll learn it is true.
5. Chemical Evolution.
This is not true? Very well I got something to show you: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kM-Jfq0Y_zs
If chemical evolution can't happen that shouldn't have happened.
So you say only Microevolution is possible?
Firstly MACRO evolution is a lot of micro evolution together. Saying that macro evolution is false and not micro is just stupid...
You can try to disporove any of these.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:00 pm; edited 2 times in total | Bikerman wrote: |
| DavidkChase wrote: | | I also know that there is 5 diff kinds of evo and the only one can prove is micro. Dont assume that Im as dumb as you think. |
It was you who agreed that you are a wacko. I don't say you are dumb - I say you are scientifically ignorant - and you are, as that last passage demonstrates. There are NOT 5 types of evolution. That myth comes from right-wing conservative creationist sites like http://www.conservapedia.com/Types_of_evolution
It's crap - laughable crap. |
i'd never heard this one before - the "five types of evolution". ^_^; i'm so tempted to log in to that wiki and add a few more "types of evolution":
- Cultural evolution (the development of cultures)
- Artistic evolution (the growth of an artist's creativity)
- Strain fracture of evolution (the development of cracks and the origin of fractures in bodies)
- Character evolution (the growth and development of characters in a literary work)
Hey, pop quiz, people, what logical fallacy is that "five types of evolution" page guilty of?
Hint: it begins with 'e'. ^_-LOL...perhaps we should have a competition to see how many 'evolutions' we can come up with ?
PS - I think your fallacy question might be a bit tough....perhaps give the second letter as well - 'q'.
PPS - I tried to create an account on the conservative wiki - guess what ?
PPPS - what about Religious Evolution - the gradual change in interpretation of scripture over time in response to increased knowledge in natural philosophy/science...
Last edited by Bikerman on Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Bikerman you shouldnt be so quick to judge. First off the site I provided is something I stumbled upon not to prove anything but it is the closest thing I could find to explain not science but what that Bible actually means.. Second the question I asked has nothing to do with some creationist site. I went on to read what you provided and when I got so something I didnt know or understand I looked it up. like the radiometric dating. I already knew or read about carbon-dating but did not know much of these others. So I looked on wiki for the answer and other non-creationist sites. It is simply a question I came up on my own which instead of posting the question here I put it where it belongs. So perhap you will show a bit more respect before you jump to conclusions.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Bikerman you shouldnt be so quick to judge. First off the site I provided is something I stumbled upon not to prove anything but it is the closest thing I could find to explain not science but what that Bible actually means.. |
If that is really true then you can't have looked very hard. Why not start by assuming the bible means what it says?
| Quote: |
| Second the question I asked has nothing to do with some creationist site. I went on to read what you provided and when I got so something I didnt know or understand I looked it up. like the radiometric dating. |
Err..well that must be a massive coincidence then because I have seen exactly the same point made on several creationist sites.
| Quote: |
| I already knew or read about carbon-dating but did not know much of these others. So I looked on wiki for the answer and other non-creationist sites. It is simply a question I came up on my own which instead of posting the question here I put it where it belongs. So perhap you will show a bit more respect before you jump to conclusions. |
Well, if you did think of the question yourself then fine - I will happily withdraw my comment that you got it from a creationist site (see how nice I am - I'm not even asking for proof, I'm accepting your word unconditionally).
I don't think respect has yet been earned, however. I'm still waiting for the surveys and statistics you promised that show a correlation between changes in teaching about God and increase in social evils... | Bikerman wrote: |
| Deanhills wrote: | | Hope you will continue as am enjoying this debate very much. |
My main reason for engaging in debates like this is simple: I am concerned (as an educator) about the rise of fundamentalism within Christianity - specifically creationism. The reasons for this concern are not esoteric or abstract - they are very real. In the UK we have many schools that are now teaching a creationist syllabus. Over in the US, the Supreme Court had to get involved to stop it happening there.
As someone who has spent many years teaching, I find the teaching of creationist dogma as 'truth' to be abhorrent, and I will take any opportunity to express my opposition. These people are not just a harmless bunch of wackos, they seek to influence what I teach, and what children are taught, based on religious dogma. That is totally unacceptible.
I have never had a problem with teaching creationism and other religious creation myths in context - in Religious Studies classes. I have a major problem with teaching it as part of the science syllabus. This is a very real issue - many youngsters are being spoon-fed this nonsense at the expense of a proper scientific education and the consequences will be disasterous.
Even supporters of creationism like David admit that it is NOT scientific, it is FAITH - in fact most creationists have a real downer on science - so it is strange, is it not, that many creationists want to see creationism taught in the science syllabus as an alternative to evolutionary theory? Why would they want a non-science subject taught in science, instead of the proper place - religious studies? Go figure!
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/creationists.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2982933.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article739487.ece
http://oconallstreet.com/2007/10/21/dup-calls-for-creationism-on-science-syllabus/ |
Thanks Chris. A quality explanation as all of your debates usually are. Think my mind most of the time wraps around the spaces in between the words rather than the words themselves. Reading the debate made me happy. For completely unscientific reasons. Not only did I enjoy it, but learned a lot as well. Am completely bowled over with all the knowledge.Whilst you get together your evidence for school teaching, David, I'll just add one further reference for you to read on the issue of radiometric dating.
The following is a discussion on radiometric dating (and other methods) by Dr. Roger C. Wiens. Note that Dr Wiens is a Christian and the paper is specifically aimed at other Christians. For the record I think it is a very good piece of work. If you take the time to read through this then I am pretty sure it will address any concerns you may have from reading creationist propoganda.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WIENS.html#page%2020 I will read that, I am still looking for evidence which I said I will produce so please be patient the study I say was about a year ago so it will take me bit to find it again. And what it mainly refers to though is when they took prayer out of school and some other minor things in public school. It will also take me a while to read what you have offered I dont have alot ot time during the day so I will soak up what I can.
Ahh...OK, let me help you then.
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/prayer-in-public-school.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_prag.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra8.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra2.htm
So what I think you are referring to is the 1963 Supreme Court decision that mandatory reading of Bible verses or prayers in public schools is unconstitutional. Would that be correct?
And your thesis is that since 1963 society has 'gone to pot' with increases in violence, teenage pregnancy, disrespect for authority, drug use etc. Further, this decline in social standards of behaviour is in some way correlated with the 1963 ruling.
Would that be an accurate description of your point? If so I will respond in more detail, but let's agree the point before I commit my time to refuting it... Here's something that might be of interest. I decided to dig around and see if I could find support for your thesis. I chose 2 'performance indicators' - homicide rates and teenage abortion rates (simply because they were the most readily available). Unfortunately there are no reliable abortion figures pre-1972 (because they were mostly illegal before that time) so I had to go from that date. I compiled the Stats from the US government stats office and put them into a graph (abortion figures are in tens of thousands, homicides in units per 1000 population). The trends are interesting. At first sight there appears to be some support for the hypothesis, but on a closer look this is illusory.
If it is true that there is a correlation between the 1963 Supreme Court ruling and social 'evils', then one would not expect to see both indicators start to go down after 1990 - why would they, since compulsory prayer was not reintroduced then? (The trend is repeated in total abortions and both continue downwards to the present* - unfortunately I didn't have definitive stats post 2002, so I only included stats that I am sure of). I'm not sure what this graph actually tells us...my instinct is that the picture is very complicated and there are many variables in play. It is certainly interesting but I don't honestly think it supports your hypothesis...
PS - If you look at homicide stats** from earlier (I didn't include them because I am slightly dubious about their accuracy) then you will see a large rise from 1915 to 1933 - on a par with the rise from 1965 to 1978 - this clearly cannot be explained in religious terms.
* http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
** http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm#usmu Yes that is what I was refering to. However I looking for teen pregnancy and teen suicide. From what I find it is claimed that teen pregnancy has increased 400 percent,teen suicide 43.1 per 1000. I am still looking for a more reliable resource for my claim. To be honest this is not what I really care to debate but it is fine for now. I am have not replied for a while because I am learning more and more about radiometric dating. I am not sure if I will completely agree with this but before I come to a decision I will try to answer my own questions before I present them here. So please be patient.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Yes that is what I was refering to. However I looking for teen pregnancy and teen suicide. From what I find it is claimed that teen pregnancy has increased 400 percent,teen suicide 43.1 per 1000. I am still looking for a more reliable resource for my claim. To be honest this is not what I really care to debate but it is fine for now. I am have not replied for a while because I am learning more and more about radiometric dating. I am not sure if I will completely agree with this but before I come to a decision I will try to answer my own questions before I present them here. So please be patient. |
Teen pregnancy figures - another myth put around by those who want prayer back in schools.
Statistics are available from 1972 below. Like the other two indicators I provided, the figures have been falling steadily post 1990 and now stand at a lower total than 1972.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf
Teen suicide - I can only find figures from 1990 - 2004. Needless to say they don't seem to show any huge increase over this period
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5635a2.htmWell all I can say is Im not sure where these people got their data but it doesnt seem to support the claim. At the least though there is a increase it seems around 1966 for homicde but considering that has nothing to do with schools that really is irrelevant. However the abortion seems to be going up so it would be interesting to see what the 1963 data would show.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Well all I can say is Im not sure where these people got their data but it doesnt seem to support the claim. At the least though there is a increase it seems around 1966 for homicde but considering that has nothing to do with schools that really is irrelevant. However the abortion seems to be going up so it would be interesting to see what the 1963 data would show. |
There is no accurare abortion data for 1963 for the simple reason that abortion was (largely) illegal at that time (except in very specific circumstances such as rape). The data that I have listed comes from US Government sources and is as accurate as I can possibly make it. I took trouble to eliminate anything that I was not sure of or that was speculative, and point out where there might be some doubt over any data I gave a link to. In short this is the best data that exists, to my knowledge. It was not chosen to prove or disprove any point - I simply went for the most authoratitive sources I could find.
PS - check again the abortion figures - I think you will find there is a downward trend, not up.I was refering to your chart showing from 1972 to 1980 a increase in abortion. As far as 1963 I just wonder at what level it was and would it be a constant or would it be lower and be a constant rise since 1963. It doesnt really matter though this isnt something I have a interest in debating. I am still learning about radiometric dating which I read in my spare time so it may be a while before I respond on it.
Fair enough. I have no particular interest in 'making a point' about the 1963 ruling - other than refuting some of the more ridiculous claims that are made about it. It happened at a time of immense social change and to 'make' a correlation between that particular issue and social events as a whole is simplistic and unhelpful. Let's leave it at that.
On the issue of radiometric dating, I hope the references I provided prove helpful. If you have any specific questions then I will be happy to (try to) address them. If you are genuine in your wish to understand the issues then I would invite you to honestly consider your current position, vis-a-vie the age of the Earth, in light of the data we have from radiometric dating. In other words - don't simply try to nit-pick specific cases, consider the evidence as a whole, and see if you can reconcile what we know from radiometric dating with your view that the Earth is 6-8k years old. I think, if you are honest and sincere, that you will find it impossible to reconcile the two...
I will be honest about one thing, if I decide that the age is longer than 6-8k years old it will have no bearing on the Bible and God. I will learn what I can about these things from both sides, I admit that creationist will decide not to show everything and are a bit sneaky in a way but I have met and seen evos who are no better and do the same thing. I have no desire to be a creationist who cant admit real science but I also have no desire to be a sceintist who cant accept what man cant explain. Point is no matter what God will always be in the picture for me.
Well there is nothing wrong with that. All one can ask for is honesty. If you come to the honest conclusion that the 6-8k age of the earth is untenable and therefore decide to abandon such a view then that does not mean you have to abandon belief in God - nor would I push you to do so.
PS - my concern is with education. That means, in this case, I am concerned with what you teach your kids. I have no problem with you bringing up your children in a religious tradition - who am I to tell you how to raise your children? - but I do have a problem with bringing them up in an environment which seeks to deny basic scientific truths. By all means bring your kids up as Christians (I may disagree, but, hey, we all disagree on some things), but please, please, don't teach them things which are demonstrably false.
Last edited by Bikerman on Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:28 am; edited 1 time in total
Just thought I'd say, David, that your beliefs have now become sort of like mine. I find the idea of the world 6-8k years old...absurd. I believe in guided evolution to some extent too, and God is always in the picture for me too. I had given up on most creationist beliefs before I even knew them. On this other forum someone goes to me like "YOU ARE A CREATIONIST!!" and I'm like "what's a creationist?" so the person tells me about how they believe in the world being 5,000 years old, and right from then I rejected that bullshit belief. =)
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Just thought I'd say, David, that your beliefs have now become sort of like mine. I find the idea of the world 6-8k years old...absurd. I believe in guided evolution to some extent too, and God is always in the picture for me too. I had given up on most creationist beliefs before I even knew them. On this other forum someone goes to me like "YOU ARE A CREATIONIST!!" and I'm like "what's a creationist?" so the person tells me about how they believe in the world being 5,000 years old, and right from then I rejected that bullshit belief. =) |
Respectable, but pretty much the entire basis of evolution by natural selection is to show that a designer was/is not involved in the process. To insert an intelligent being that knowingly guides evolution (and in turn decides the products of the process) into the equation undermines the entire Theory of Evolution for the most part.Well, I believe that what we are right now can't possibly be what God just plopped us on the Earth as; it had to start from [i]something[i], and I believe that 'something' was made by God, but billions of years ago (certainly not 5,000! =P).
I have to say though that this radiometric dating has alot of flaws. Which I will get to when I am done studing this but what I see right away is that the half life is based on a assumption that the decay is constant when we know its not. One thing I would like to add is there is something called the RATE project, Bikerman I was hoping you could give me your opinion on their findings. There are many websites that talk about their findings although I can not find a site actually belonging to the RATE project but here is one for starters.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp | DavidkChase wrote: |
| I have to say though that this radiometric dating has alot of flaws. Which I will get to when I am done studing this but what I see right away is that the half life is based on a assumption that the decay is constant when we know its not. |
We know no such thing. Every test done to date indicates that it IS constant. There is NOT A SINGLE SHRED of evidence that the decay rate changes significantly over time or with different starting conditions. It IS possible to theorise slight changes but such changes are miniscule. For example:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html
We also have over 60 years of observational data which shows it to be constant. More importantly, however, a non-constant decay rate would have physical implications for the world around us and it would also mean that Quantum physics is fundamentally wrong. No such changes have been observed (despite looking) and Quantum theory is the most accurate, tested theory we have. The idea of a non-constant decay rate is creationist nonsense put around by people who don't really understand physics, or dishonest creationists with an agenda (such as the RATE group) - it is also covered comprehensively in the links I gave you, specifically:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit | Quote: |
| One thing I would like to add is there is something called the RATE project, Bikerman I was hoping you could give me your opinion on their findings. There are many websites that talk about their findings although I can not find a site actually belonging to the RATE project but here is one for starters.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp |
RATE is a group/project setup by the Institute for Creation Research with the goal of trying to discredit radiometric dating techniques. The reason you won't find a site for RATE is that RATE is entirely an ICR creation - the best place to look for RATE is on their website : www.icr.org
They have published nothing in the professional literature, preferring to publish their results on Creationist websites and in book form (where they are not subjected to proper peer-review). There is a not-too-technical discussion of the science (or I should say 'bad science') involved on these sites:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/Education/origins/rate-ri.htm
(note that I have provided a Christian site (asa3) as a reference, so you don't think that this is some conspiracy by atheistic scientists to rubbish RATE - it isn't. RATE is rubbish whether or not you are Christian).
Mainstream scientists don't really get involved with groups like ICR for a very good reason. The way to do valid science in any field is to do the work, write up the results and submit the write-up to one of the professional journals of repute in the particular field concerned. Creationists NEVER DO THIS (note, I do not say rarely, I say NEVER). Why is this? Because they know damn well that they are doing bogus science which no journal of repute would publish, and any proper peer-review process would throw out. Unless something is peer-reviewed it is generally considered unworthy of comment by scientists - peer-review is the way we sort out the bad science and pseudo-science from good science.
Anyway, I will comment on the results just so you have an indication of what nonsense they are..
To summarise their findings:- RATE agree that there is overwhelming evidence for 500 million years of nuclear decay.
- In order to square this with the Young Earth Creationist position they posit that the decay rate (via a fundamental physical constant called the coupling constant) has changed (by a factor of a billion) at specific times in history for specific atoms/isotopes only.
- They realise that this causes problems (heat and radiation) which cannot be reconciled with observation, but they propose that these 'problems' might be answered sometime in the future.
Note that these are not 'little' problems. The heat generated by their 'scenario' would have been sufficient to 'boil' the Earth into a cloud of smoke. The radiation would have been 1 million times current background level - how did Noah survive this? The issue is, of course, not addressed and they admit that there is no known mechanism which would account for either heat dissipation or radioactive survivability. Pretty crappy hypothesis...
Basically what we have here is a classic case of data-shaping and fallacious reasoning. They start with an assumption that the world is approx 6000 years old and then selectively choose data to fit the hypothesis. When the data doesn't fit they change the rules (changing the coupling constant selectively over time and for selected atoms) with no indication of how these rule changes could possibly occur, until the data fits the assumptions. They then ignore the fact that these changes would result in noticable phenomena that are NOT observed, by saying we might be able to address that in the future....This is not just bad science, it is dishonesty of a high order.
Let's put this in context. What the RATE project suggests is that we change the laws of physics. We change them only for a few days, and we change them only for a few types of atom - the laws apply to the rest of the atoms as normal. After a few days then the laws revert to what they are today.
Do you really think this makes sense? - even as a non scientist you must be able to see that this is nonsense. You can call this sort of 'speculation' a number of things - fantasy, wishful thinking, faith, hope, or my personal favourite - complete crap. What you cannot do is call it science.
They are, in short, a bunch of bogus, dishonest charlatans and any real scientist would be ashamed to be in the same room. Groups/projects like RATE are the antithesis of proper science and they pervert the scientific method in a way which is unforgivable. I cannot adequately express my disgust and contempt for these people without resorting to profanity - so I will leave it at that.
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:22 am; edited 10 times in totalPeace be upon you all.
I must first apologise for not reading anything except skim reading the first post by bikerman.
I feel the topic is now too long for me to join in the current conversation.
But here's my two cents on one particular word in Genesis 1:
One issue people don't like in the Bible is the idea that God created the world/universe in seven days. This isn't scientifically true. (Or maybe it is? Surprise me lol!)
Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages which are closely related in the meaning of words and their sounds. If i am not mistaken 'yawm' is the word used in Genesis, which is commonly translated as 'day'.
In Arabic, 'yawm' generally means 'day'. However it also has the other meaning of 'period', i.e. period of time. This is illustrated by the Qur'an's use of the word. (No i'm not trying to bring the Qur'an in the debate or anything. I'm quoting the Qur'an's use of the word, because the Qur'an is an important writing because it is written in classical arabic). For example, the Qur'an says that a 'yawm' is a thousand years. It also says that a 'yawm' is fifty thousand years. It wouldn't make sense that a yawm is twenty-four hours, because 24 hours does not equal a 1000 years. Thus the other meaning is 'period of time'. This can mean any period of time e.g. thousand or fifty thousand.
I see no reason why 'yawm' can't be translated as 'period of time', instead of 'day' in the Bible. This would be much less conflicting with science.
Thanks. I'll try to remember i posted here.
| loyal wrote: |
| I see no reason why 'yawm' can't be translated as 'period of time', instead of 'day' in the Bible. This would be much less conflicting with science. |
This has already been dealt with. No matter what value you assign to 'yawm' the Genesis account doesn't work. It is not simply a case of young earth vs old earth, it is a case of the sequence being wrong - whatever the timescales. You are right, of course, in saying it would reduce the conflict - the idea of 6 days is completely unsustainable - but it doesn't mean that the account works scientifically - it doesn't. | Quote: |
| They start with an assumption that the world is approx 6000 years old and then selectively choose data to fit the hypothesis. When the data doesn't fit they change the rules (changing the coupling constant selectively over time and for selected atoms) with no indication of how these rule changes could possibly occur, until the data fits the assumptions. |
And I suppose evos never do that? Evos start with the assumption that the world is billions of years old. I dont blaim them for not submiting it. Since I have started this debate with you not once have I purposely tried to trick or lie to you. On many occasions you have either insulted me or simply been rude. With that attitude I would rather beleive these Creationist than someone who would try to play word games or use my "scientific ignorance" against me. As a reference to word games I once asked you if you beleived in evo. You said no you accept it. I then gave you defintions for both words but you seem to think they are not the same. I frankly dont care what you say about this because you may not admit "I beleive in evolution" but I would bet that you wont say "I dont beleive in evolution" either.
So heres what we can do, you tell me which one you want to start with the age of the earth or the flood. You pick. I will make a thread and we can begin there. And slowly we can pick apart radiometric dating and we will see how reliable it is. In the meantime I have a question for you.
I dont know exactly when we went from whatever to homo sapien but Im guessing you would claim millions of years ago. So if the first civilation(correct me if I am wrong) is Sumerians recorded then one where is the historical records for these humans that lived millions of years before? Second in the lat 100 years we have had a technological boom. Since the Sumerians which would roughly be around 3000 years and we went from their technological level to ours today do you expect me to beleive that all of those humans that lived millions of years stayed at the same low tech level for all those years and we only 3000 years ago began to become smarter? This does not make sense to me.Dude...do you honestly believe the Earth is several thousand years old? 
Well some people do think that,
and I wonder besides the radiation decay that shows us that the world is a few billion years old, what about the speed of light?
Some galaxys are so far away that if the universe is only 6000 years old. That light wouldn't have reached us.
So how do you explain that? Light is going slower and slower?
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| And I suppose evos never do that? Evos start with the assumption that the world is billions of years old. I dont blaim them for not submiting it. Since I have started this debate with you not once have I purposely tried to trick or lie to you. |
I never said you have done so. What I say is that you constantly move on from a point without dealing with it. What I say is that you frequently quote creationist nonsense without either checking it or even properly reading it. What I say is that you are not really interested in learning - merely in trying to defend an untenable position. | Quote: |
| On many occasions you have either insulted me or simply been rude. With that attitude I would rather beleive these Creationist than someone who would try to play word games or use my "scientific ignorance" against me. As a reference to word games I once asked you if you beleived in evo. You said no you accept it. I then gave you defintions for both words but you seem to think they are not the same. I frankly dont care what you say about this because you may not admit "I beleive in evolution" but I would bet that you wont say "I dont beleive in evolution" either. |
I accept evolution - it is not a faith position because if there were any evidence to the contrary I would look at it (there isn't). You believe in creationism. It is a faith position because there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and it requires faith.
If you want me to say I believe in evolution - fine - I believe in evolution. The problem is that 'belief' is often used to indicate a 'faith' position, and faith is generally defined as 'belief without, or despite, evidence'. That is why I normally try to avoid the word - it implies that there is evidence to the contrary, when there clearly isn't. You may call this a semantic quibble - I was simply trying to be clear.
I have not insulted you, and I don't think I have been rude. I have pointed out your scientific ignorance - a matter of fact, not an insult. I have played no word games with you and nor have I taken advantage of your ignorance - in fact I have gone out of my way to try to explain concepts and issues to you. | Quote: |
| So heres what we can do, you tell me which one you want to start with the age of the earth or the flood. You pick. I will make a thread and we can begin there. And slowly we can pick apart radiometric dating and we will see how reliable it is. In the meantime I have a question for you. |
Why bother? I've spent my time answering your questions, and I have dealt with every single point you have raised. You, on the other hand, have dealt with nothing. What is the point in starting another thread when it is obvious from this thread that you simply ignore anything you find inconvenient and move on to another point? However, you are free to do so - that is the beauty of free speech... | Quote: |
| I dont know exactly when we went from whatever to homo sapien but Im guessing you would claim millions of years ago. |
Why guess? Why not do some research of your own and find out? You have the most powerful research tool ever known at your fingertips, so why not use it? | Quote: |
| So if the first civilation(correct me if I am wrong) |
OK - it is 'civilisation'. | Quote: |
| is Sumerians recorded then one where is the historical records for these humans that lived millions of years before? |
There is no historical record of note because writing was not invented until around 3500BCE. There IS a record, of course, in cave-paintings and archaeological finds (jewelry, flint tools, pottery, settlements etc) and this dates back several hundred thousand years. | Quote: |
| Second in the lat 100 years we have had a technological boom. Since the Sumerians which would roughly be around 3000 years and we went from their technological level to ours today do you expect me to beleive that all of those humans that lived millions of years stayed at the same low tech level for all those years and we only 3000 years ago began to become smarter? This does not make sense to me. |
What makes sense to you is of little importance. A 6,000 year old earth makes sense to you. A wooden boat carrying all the species on earth makes sense to you.
On the specific point - the Sumerians existed as a culture around Eridu in the 6th millenium BCE. (That alone blows away the 6,000 year old earth of course). The history of civilisation starts with the first social groupings organised into towns/cities. This comes after the invention of agriculture (circa 8-10,000 BCE). Before that time homo-sapiens was largely a hunter-gatherer species existing in familial groupings and tribes with a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle. Only with the invention of agriculture and the city does it become possible for individuals to devote large amounts of their time to civilised activities (art, craft, writing, etc), because before then they would have spent nearly all their available time simply surviving.
As to why it took 10-12,000 years (after the first agriculture) to arrive at where we are today..good question. If progress had continued from the Ancient Greeks to the current date then we would undoubtedly be much more advanced that we are. Unfortunately we had the 'dark ages' where religion stifled enquiry into the material world, and this set us back by over a millenium.
There is little evidence, by the way, that we have become 'smarter' over the last few millenia. There is every reason to suppose that people in ancient Greece or Sumeria were just as 'smart' as we are today.
People can judge for themselves whether they think you are honest in debate, and whether they think I have addressed your points honestly, by simply reading back through the thread.
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:11 pm; edited 3 times in total | Klaw 2 wrote: |
Well some people do think that,
and I wonder besides the radiation decay that shows us that the world is a few billion years old, what about the speed of light?
Some galaxys are so far away that if the universe is only 6000 years old. That light wouldn't have reached us.
So how do you explain that? Light is going slower and slower? |
Yes - that is exactly what some creationists propose - that light has been slowing down since 'creation'.
It is, of course, a nonsense, but what's new? The only way to make Young Earth Creationism work, from a physics perspective, is to change a number of physical constants - the speed of light, the coupling constant (the fine structure constant), the gravitational constant, the mass of elementary particles..and so on. Not only that, these constants have to be changed in a very selective way for specific periods of time. No indication is ever given HOW these changes arise, of course. (Clearly 'God did it' )
Detailed refutation of the 'variable speed of light' hypothesis is available below...
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/index.htmlYeah well i bet that consercepedia has some "theories" in there. Oh and I had seen a video some time ago.
Firstly it stated that the speed of light can't decrease in a linear way because we would have noticed it change.
This video stated that when you give light and exponential decrease.
(like here, http://www.clas.ufl.edu/jur/200709/images/hill-f8.gif this picture has further nothing to do with it)
Wich means that supernova calculations get mixed up and you make the universe older.
And agree with you bikerman, there is no point in discussing radiometric dating, it woeld be just another typical creationist vs "smart guy who doesn't believe in god, telse the truth, knows a lot and doesn't use fallacies" debate. I will pick and I will start it in this forum. Yes I beleive the world is between 6-8k years old. The more and more I find on radiometric dating the more flaws I see. So the instead of trying to put this in my own words I will put what I found on here
| Quote: |
The geological time scale, described in this book by Harland and others, is based on less than 800 dates obtained by various methods on rocks from different geological layers. These dates tend to agree with each other, but there are hundreds of thousands of other dates that have been measured and were not listed. Many of these other dates disagree with one another, so it is not clear what the significance of these 800 dates is.
The great majority of the dates on which the geological time scale is based, are measured using one method, the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method. In order to explain the fact that older dates tend to be found deeper down (if this is true), we really only need to explain why this shouuld be true for K-Ar dating, and then we have explained much of the geological time scale.
K-Ar dating is based on the decay of potassium 40 to argon 40. When lava is hot, argon escapes from it, so it starts out with potassium but no argon. Over time, potassium gradually decays to argon, and the rate at which this occurs can be measured in the laboratory. By measuring how much potassium and argon is in a rock, and knowing how fast potassium decays, one can compute how old the rock is. The more argon, the older the rock is. The more potassium, the younger the rock is, since a larger amount of potassium would produce argon faster.
However, the reality is much more complicated than this. The argon does not always escape when the lava is hot. The potassium can be removed later on, invalidating the calculation. Also, rocks absorb argon very easily from the environment. In fact, geologists have to take considerable precautions to get rid of the argon that accumulates on their lab equipment so that they can accurately measure K-Ar ages. Rocks can absorb a considerable amount of argon in this way, so all of the argon in a rock did not necessarily come from the potassium it contains. Atmospheric argon absorbed in this way can be corrected for, because it has a certain amount of argon 36 which can be measured. However, argon also comes up from the interior of the earth, and this argon has very little argon 36 in it, and cannot be detected. So we can explain the old K-Ar dates just by the fact that rocks absorb so much argon that comes up from the interior of the earth. Older rocks would have more time to absorb argon, and there was probably more argon coming through the earth at the time of the Flood and shortly thereafter than there is today. In fact, a number of geologists themselves now say that K-Ar dating is not very reliable, or mainly of historical importance. This is quite an admission, since most of the geological time scale is based on K-Ar dating.
Another problem with K-Ar dating is that many volcanoes that we know erupted in the past several hundred years give K-Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
A large number of K-Ar dates on which the geological time scale is based, are dates from a mineral called glaucony. However, many geologists say that this mineral is highly unreliable for dating. So here we have a large part of the geological time scale based on a mineral which geologists themselves say is highly unreliable.
So I guess we'll have to discard K-Ar dating as a reliable dating method.
|
The complete site is http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/deception.html
I do beleive in creation but not just by faith but I belive or accept that there is a large amount of evidence to support it. | DavidkChase wrote: |
| I will pick and I will start it in this forum. Yes I beleive the world is between 6-8k years old. The more and more I find on radiometric dating the more flaws I see. So the instead of trying to put this in my own words I will put what I found on here. |
You what the more creationist propaganda you read the more ignorant you get that would fit in.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | The geological time scale, described in this book by Harland and others, is based on less than 800 dates obtained by various methods on rocks from different geological layers. These dates tend to agree with each other, but there are hundreds of thousands of other dates that have been measured and were not listed. Many of these other dates disagree with one another, so it is not clear what the significance of these 800 dates is.
The great majority of the dates on which the geological time scale is based, are measured using one method, the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method. In order to explain the fact that older dates tend to be found deeper down (if this is true), we really only need to explain why this shouuld be true for K-Ar dating, and then we have explained much of the geological time scale.
K-Ar dating is based on the decay of potassium 40 to argon 40. When lava is hot, argon escapes from it, so it starts out with potassium but no argon. Over time, potassium gradually decays to argon, and the rate at which this occurs can be measured in the laboratory. By measuring how much potassium and argon is in a rock, and knowing how fast potassium decays, one can compute how old the rock is. The more argon, the older the rock is. The more potassium, the younger the rock is, since a larger amount of potassium would produce argon faster.
However, the reality is much more complicated than this. The argon does not always escape when the lava is hot. The potassium can be removed later on, invalidating the calculation. Also, rocks absorb argon very easily from the environment. In fact, geologists have to take considerable precautions to get rid of the argon that accumulates on their lab equipment so that they can accurately measure K-Ar ages. Rocks can absorb a considerable amount of argon in this way, so all of the argon in a rock did not necessarily come from the potassium it contains. Atmospheric argon absorbed in this way can be corrected for, because it has a certain amount of argon 36 which can be measured. However, argon also comes up from the interior of the earth, and this argon has very little argon 36 in it, and cannot be detected. So we can explain the old K-Ar dates just by the fact that rocks absorb so much argon that comes up from the interior of the earth. Older rocks would have more time to absorb argon, and there was probably more argon coming through the earth at the time of the Flood and shortly thereafter than there is today. In fact, a number of geologists themselves now say that K-Ar dating is not very reliable, or mainly of historical importance. This is quite an admission, since most of the geological time scale is based on K-Ar dating.
Another problem with K-Ar dating is that many volcanoes that we know erupted in the past several hundred years give K-Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
A large number of K-Ar dates on which the geological time scale is based, are dates from a mineral called glaucony. However, many geologists say that this mineral is highly unreliable for dating. So here we have a large part of the geological time scale based on a mineral which geologists themselves say is highly unreliable.
So I guess we'll have to discard K-Ar dating as a reliable dating method.
|
The complete site is http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/deception.html
I do beleive in creation but not just by faith but I belive or accept that there is a large amount of evidence to support it. |
I havn't fully read this but i think he is debunking yours and really I can't be bothered. The answer was within your reach:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/response1.html
You are just a typical creationist and that isn't a compliment.
as you can see it was on the same site. | Quote: |
| Why bother? I've spent my time answering your questions, and I have dealt with every single point you have raised. You, on the other hand, have dealt with nothing. What is the point in starting another thread when it is obvious from this thread that you simply ignore anything you find inconvenient and move on to another point? However, you are free to do so - that is the beauty of free speech... |
What have I ignored if you can show me I will apologize and try to the best of my ability to answer what you have proposed.
| Quote: |
| On the specific point - the Sumerians existed as a culture around Eridu in the 6th millenium BCE |
What proof do you have of this? I find it interesting that when the 8 people got off the boat they went and created a town or city in a plain called Shinar.
Gen. Ch.11 vs.2 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
It can be argued but wouldnt Shinar be what we call Sumar which is now northern Iraq.
Now either there were humans all over the world and simply the Sumar are the first we can identify or it is the city that the 8 from the boat created. I dont think that if the Bible is false that those who wrote it said to themselves lets make noah get of at this perticular point cause in the future it will be known as the first documented civilsations.
| Quote: |
Only with the invention of agriculture and the city does it become possible for individuals to devote large amounts of their time to civilised activities (art, craft, writing, etc), because before then they would have spent nearly all their available time simply surviving.
|
Ok from what I found is that homo sapeins first started showing up 200,000 years ago. So why would it take them roughly 190,000 years to invent agriculture? That is hard to beleive that they simply decided to not study anything because they were trying to survive?
That just does not make any sense. If we can go thru this huge boom in 100 years while we still try to survive then these people could of most definantly come up with something over 1900,000 years.
| Quote: |
| There is little evidence, by the way, that we have become 'smarter' over the last few millenia. There is every reason to suppose that people in ancient Greece or Sumeria were just as 'smart' as we are today |
Let me clarify. I did not mean that our brain or learning capicty as increased by any means. I simply meant that we as a civilsation have become more smarter or advance.
Last edited by DavidkChase on Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:31 pm; edited 1 time in total | Quote: |
You are just a typical creationist and that isn't a compliment.
as you can see it was on the same site.
|
Perhaps you should of read what you posted before you try to say its debunking me. The man is talking about a dating method called fission track dating.
Which he does try to defend to the author of the site but admits on many points that there are flaws.
Which at what I proposed at the moment on this forum has nothing to do with fission track dating. | DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | | On the specific point - the Sumerians existed as a culture around Eridu in the 6th millenium BCE |
What proof do you have of this? I find it interesting that when the 8 people got off the boat they went and created a town or city in a plain called Shinar. |
Wait, wait, are you presenting the ark story as proof? ROFLASC. Present some proof off noah's ark first!
| DavidkChase wrote: |
Gen. Ch.11 vs.2 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
It can be argued but wouldnt Shinar be what we call Sumar which is now northern Iraq.
Now either there were humans all over the world and simply the Sumar are the first we can identify or it is the city that the 8 from the boat created. I dont think that if the Bible is false that those who wrote it said to themselves lets make noah get of at this perticular point cause in the future it will be known as the first documented civilsations. |
Stil ROFLASC, proof anyone?
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | Only with the invention of agriculture and the city does it become possible for individuals to devote large amounts of their time to civilised activities (art, craft, writing, etc), because before then they would have spent nearly all their available time simply surviving.
|
Ok from what I found is that homo sapeins first started showing up 200,000 years ago. So why would it take them roughly 190,000 years to invent agriculture? That is hard to beleive that they simply decided to not study anything because they were trying to survive?
That just does not make any sense. If we can go thru this huge boom in 100 years while we still try to survive then these people could of most definantly come up with something over 1900,000 years. |
They did perfected making tools for hunting etc. ever went to Siberia? Nomadic people life there they don't do agriculture they keep animals. Allmost all their tools are very complicated, 1 boot costs like one week to make.
Besides a new technology gives way to more. The human technological understanding is exponentially, maybe that's an answer?
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | You are just a typical creationist and that isn't a compliment.
as you can see it was on the same site.
|
Perhaps you should of read what you posted before you try to say its debunking me. The man is talking about a dating method called fission track dating. |
woops
You never do any research do you?
Very well:
Fission track dating is a radiometric dating technique based on analyses of the damage trails, or tracks, left by fission fragments in certain uranium bearing minerals and glasses.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
Which he does try to defend to the author of the site but admits on many points that there are flaws.
Which at what I proposed at the moment on this forum has nothing to do with fission track dating. |
Also some datings are of because some other radioactive molecules got in there and then it is false. All different dating methods match and only sometimes one is of due to contamination.
Sorry but you are attempting to refute radiometric dating while not understanding that it is diveded in methods to do so. Evenso you didn't even read your own argument, I skimmed/quickread most of mine.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:41 am; edited 7 times in total | DavidkChase wrote: |
| I will pick and I will start it in this forum. Yes I beleive the world is between 6-8k years old. The more and more I find on radiometric dating the more flaws I see. So the instead of trying to put this in my own words I will put what I found on here |
And what a pack of nonsense it is. You 'see flaws' because you don't really understand what you are talking about and you look for specific YEC criticisms. If you take YECs seriously then of course you will find flaws. If, however, you actually understand the science and read what the actual scientists say then you will soon find that the YECs are lying, misleading, or simply wrong.
1) K-Ar dating is NOT the most common technique - lie number 1. Pb-Ur/Pb-Pb dating is the most refined and widely used technique. Neither are the other techniques mentioned - Ar-Ar for example.
2) The article states 'many of these dates disagree'. No number is given for 'many'. Let me supply a number - it is approximately 5%. Sometimes this is due to contamination and sometimes due to being inappropriately used. K-Ar dating is only really useful for samples older than 2 million years at the specific lab in question - Geocron (something which, again, the article fails to mention).
3) The article does not mention that in most cases a variety of techniques are used and only when there is agreement between the techniques is a firm age allocated.
4) The notion that argon seeps up from the earth and permeates the rock samples is simply wrong. Radioactive argon is trapped in the crystal lattice structure of the rocks when the molten rock solidifies. Once cooled the rock is impermeable to argon and other gasses apart from surface contamination. Labs know this, of course, and do not use surface rock in their samples.
5) The statement that glaucony (glauconite) is used for a majority of datings is incorrect. Geochronologists are well aware that glauconite is not reliable for K/Ar dating and would only do such dating to compare with other methodologies.
In short this is more creationist crap.
You still don't seem to understand the basic point. Good science is PUBLISHED. That means it is peer reviewed in the appropriate journals. Web articles by a creationist YEC computer scientist don't really count as science - they are opinion pieces based on a poor understanding of the science and a predetermined agenda - a bit like most of your postings...
If you want a detailed rebuttal (with properly cited sources) of this nonsense then see below:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review.html
Last edited by Bikerman on Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:28 am; edited 9 times in total | Quote: |
Fission track dating is a radiometric dating technique based on analyses of the damage trails, or tracks, left by fission fragments in certain uranium bearing minerals and glasses.
|
I will get to that but I did not mention uranium or fission fragments in what I posted so look again. | DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | | Why bother? I've spent my time answering your questions, and I have dealt with every single point you have raised. You, on the other hand, have dealt with nothing. What is the point in starting another thread when it is obvious from this thread that you simply ignore anything you find inconvenient and move on to another point? However, you are free to do so - that is the beauty of free speech... |
What have I ignored if you can show me I will apologize and try to the best of my ability to answer what you have proposed. |
LOL - you have ignored just about every link to the talkorigins site which addresses the questions you keep re-raising. (Either you ignored them or you didn't read them or you don't understand them).
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | On the specific point - the Sumerians existed as a culture around Eridu in the 6th millenium BCE |
What proof do you have of this? I find it interesting that when the 8 people got off the boat they went and created a town or city in a plain called Shinar. |
http://history-world.org/sumeria.htm
http://www.sron.nl/~jheise/akkadian/prehistory.html
| Quote: |
| It can be argued but wouldnt Shinar be what we call Sumar which is now northern Iraq. |
And the date for this would be? Come on - you are supposed to know the bible. When did the flood occur and when, therefore, would these 8 people be in Sumeria? Most creationist dates I have seen are between 2300BCE and 2500BCE. That, in other words, is about a millenium after the first written records we have from the region..shurely shome mishtake..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer#Language_and_writing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer_Palette
| Quote: |
| Ok from what I found is that homo sapeins first started showing up 200,000 years ago. So why would it take them roughly 190,000 years to invent agriculture? That is hard to beleive that they simply decided to not study anything because they were trying to survive? |
Well that is not a bad estimate for Homo Sapiens Sapiens - about 200,000 years ago sounds right.
http://www.roperld.com/HomoSapienEvents.htm#ages
| Quote: |
| That just does not make any sense. If we can go thru this huge boom in 100 years while we still try to survive then these people could of most definantly come up with something over 1900,000 years. |
But they didn't - we know this, so what is the big mystery? Just because you find something hard to accept you dismiss it despite the evidence? Not exactly logical is it?
Last edited by Bikerman on Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:42 am; edited 1 time in total | DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | Fission track dating is a radiometric dating technique based on analyses of the damage trails, or tracks, left by fission fragments in certain uranium bearing minerals and glasses.
|
I will get to that but I did not mention uranium or fission fragments in what I posted so look again. |
What u took was only a small part of the whole argument. That is a refutal of the whole. Taking only the small bit you like is lame. It shows that the other is simply showing one side of the argument, And is doing so with the other.
Further with only dating method gone there are still many left and well that dude refuted the stuff about fission.
And besides I can't be bothered im not going to read that whole thing!. Good night, sleep well!First of all, know that I do not fully buy into creationism, and the point I want you to get from this post is that you can make the Bible mean whatever you want it to.
| Quote: |
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the Earth and Heaven were created at the same time and before the stars. Hmm..that seems to contradict all current understanding of cosmology. |
Could heaven = the stars? After all, they are quite often referred to as "the heavens".
| Quote: |
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This seems to say that the earth was full of water and yet 'void'. Given that a void is empty this seems self-contradictory |
Take into consideration that words often have multiple meanings.
According to Webster:
1 a: not occupied : vacant <a void bishopric> b: not inhabited : deserted
| Quote: |
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
From where does the light come? |
Well, I'll assume from God.
| Quote: |
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Presumably this means he sets the earth spinning on its axis. |
Which it does, and it makes sense.
| Quote: |
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So a day is measured from evening to morning? Hmm. |
The only alternative I see is that it wasn't actually a full 24 hour day, just metaphorical language.
| Quote: |
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
So there is a 'sky' or 'heavens' in the middle of a lot of water? |
When you look into water, you see the reflection of the sky?
| Quote: |
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
So now we have water under the sky and water above it. Hmm. |
Like I said, a reflection, maybe?
| Quote: |
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Ahh...so now the firmament is heaven...but surely heaven was created 'in the beginning'? |
Maybe this is the actual Heaven, whereas Heaven earlier was merely "the heavens" (the stars).
| Quote: |
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
So we have one ocean and one island? OK...that works. |
Pangea was an island, albeit massive.
| Quote: |
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
OK, this works...we now have land and sea. |
Correct.
| Quote: |
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
So the first life on earth is grass and trees? This seems to contradict everything we know about the appearance of life (the first life was primitive bacteria which appeared in the oceans about 4 billion yrs ago). |
Do we truely know what original life was. I mean, yes, we are told what it is, but do we know?
| Quote: |
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Nope - grasses did not appear until about 65 million years ago (well over 4 billion years after the earth was formed). Trees evolved during the Devonian period (about 350 million years ago). |
See above.
| Quote: |
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Again this definition of a day as evening and morning. What happened to the afternoon? |
The word "afternoon" didn't appear until the 13th century.
| Quote: |
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Hang on - I thought light appeared on day 1? We are now in day 4. What's going on? |
More lights? I highly doubt when God created light that was simply all that would exist, perhaps He is creating more light.
| Quote: |
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Hmm...very odd indeed. Is this the creation of stars? Surely the Sun is a star? |
Firmament of heaven, meaning, the heavens of Heaven ... aka, the stars in Heaven? Or, could it just be symbolic of Heaven's light shining down to earth?
| Quote: |
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Ahh so this is the Sun and the Moon. But the moon is not a light - it merely reflects the light from the Sun. The seasons are determined by the Sun and the Earth's rotation/orbit but if we are only now seeing the Sun appear then how did the grasses and trees appear (since they rely on photosynthesis) ? |
A reflection is still that of light, of lesser intense light? A 'lesser light' so to speak. And, remember, it's only been a couple of days ... surely if God created healthy trees and grass, they could survive a couple of days without sun. What about grass in Alaska that only gets an hour of sunlight a day for almost 6 months?
| Quote: |
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Hmm...I wonder... |
Got nothin here.
| Quote: |
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Good? It's a ruddy miracle... |
A miracle that night and day are seperate?
| Quote: |
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Again with this aversion for afternoons...did God have a bad experience one afternoon? |
13th century.
| Quote: |
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
So we now get sea-life and birds? |
Looks like it.
| Quote: |
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Yep - sea life and birds all apear at once (including sea mammals). This contradicts everything we know about the appearance of life on earth... |
Again, what do we truely know as pure, 100%, unadulterated fact? I maintain the argument that we actually know very little about life's origins. If we in fact knew so much of life's origins, people would not be looking to creationist stories to understand. Fact is, we really don't know all that much. There are theories that are misconstrued as fact, and that is what we are told.
| Quote: |
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
So we have creatures in the oceans and birds on the land. |
Yup.
| Quote: |
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Come on God...get over this afternoon problem. |
13th century. I honestly just think it's symbolic of the setting then rising of the sun, the end of one day and the beginning of another.
| Quote: |
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
So now we get mammals and insects? |
Sure thing.
| Quote: |
| 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Yep - mammals and insects now appear. Again this contradicts everything we know about the appearance of life on earth. The earliest insect fossils we have are around 400 million years old. The earliest mammals appeared around 220 million years ago. Cattle appeared much later down the line. |
Well, you've simply exhausted this argument. See above about actually "knowing" things vs. being told.
| Quote: |
26 And 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 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So mankind is now to appear? |
Yeah.
| Quote: |
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Hang on - I thought Eve was the first woman created from Adam's rib - but surely that is later in Genesis 2? Hmm... |
The only other way I understand this is that God created them, then goes back and explains the process (it seems out of order though, only because the explanation happens later in the book). I dont have time tonight to devote to what is currently underway but I will send this message. Every single piece of evidence that doesnt agree with your evolution theory you consider garbage so you can think what you want.
| Quote: |
| But they didn't - we know this, so what is the big mystery? Just because you find something hard to accept you dismiss it despite the evidence? Not exactly logical is it? |
And what do you know you cant prove anything. I could say the same about you. Here we have a world that surely shows intelligent design but you dont see that. No you see that by chance a big boom created everything and now we live on a planet that is just the right distance from the sun so we dont either burn or freeze, we have a moon in a great place in the sky that gives lesser light and somehow you want to beleive that plants evolved which happen to help us survive and humans came from bacteria. Some how all these things and many more I didnt mention work at a amazing harmony but you want to beleive that one single act in space billions of years ago which hasnt happened agaiin mind you somehow got lucky and created all of this. So either God exist and your just not smart enough to explain the power he has or we somehow got extremely lucky by a big boom in the sky.
So my major point is this, its not about what I beleive its about what you beleive. I am content with what I beleive. So whatever probality you want to give say 1/1,000,000,000,000 that God exist and Jesus died on the cross then there is something you should consider. If you die and get to heaven and find out you were wrong your punishment is hell. cold sounding I know but I can explain why it works this way if you like but nonetheless while you scream in pain from the suffering in this place all of your intelligence about science isnt going to help you one bit. Your Spiritaul ingorance is what well put you in this place. If I am right and there was one man named Jesus who suffered all He did just so you dont have to go to hell wouldnt you one be grateful and two think that it is worth checking out.
I dont learn this science crap because I want to be a scientist. I learn it because I cannot fight science with faith unless somehow my words can cut thru this evo bull and reach someones heart.
Its not so I can add your name to some special club Im in its because of what I beleive I know that if I am right you will suffer I fate I would not wish on anyone so I will try to help anyone aviod that place that I can. It may take me a long time to learn all this but I am young and I have a long time to learn.
So all who reads this remember just because you dont believe in God doesnt mean He doesnt beleive in you. Despite what you beleive He loves you and wants you to join him in Heaven. | DavidkChase wrote: |
| I dont have time tonight to devote to what is currently underway but I will send this message. Every single piece of evidence that doesnt agree with your evolution theory you consider garbage so you can think what you want. |
So now we are talking about evoluton theory? A post ago it was radiometric dating?
Moving goalposts?
Anyway i said it before on this forum.
Every field of biology makes only sense WITH evolution there is infact no real scientific proog against it. None! Zippo! niltch!
Creationists like you often point to things that it doesn't explain. Sometimes because it was never intended to do.
And yes there are a few things that scientists don't know but that doesn't mean that evolution is wrong.
Al you have is a god of the gaps.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | | But they didn't - we know this, so what is the big mystery? Just because you find something hard to accept you dismiss it despite the evidence? Not exactly logical is it? |
And what do you know you cant prove anything. I could say the same about you. Here we have a world that surely shows intelligent design but you dont see that. |
O my back to ID again you think that is designed, I'll come back to that.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| No you see that by chance a big boom created everything and now we live on a planet that is just the right distance from the sun so we dont either burn or freeze, |
Yes "JUST" in the right position,
On mars it is 23 degrees below zero. (average)
While on earth it is 15 above zero. (Average)
Also mars hasn't got a big resevoir of warmth, we do the seas. On mars there may be water however these don't hold any warmth from the sun.
By calculations of scientists, if the earth was alomost on top of mars life would still be possible.
| Quote: |
Previous definition.
The habitable zone first encompassed the orbits of Venus to Mars, planets close enough to the sun for solar energy to drive the chemistry of life — but not so close as to boil off water or break down the organic molecules on which life depends.
Expanded definition
But the habitable zone may be larger than originally conceived. The strong gravitational pull caused by large planets may produce enough energy to sufficiently heat the cores of orbiting moons. Life has proven itself tough here on Earth.
|
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| we have a moon in a great place in the sky that gives lesser light and somehow you want to beleive that plants evolved which happen to help us survive and humans came from bacteria. |
Yes we do, and we have PROOF! You on the other hand for you CReAtionist Propaganda
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Some how all these things and many more I didnt mention work at a amazing harmony but you want to beleive that one single act in space billions of years ago which hasnt happened agaiin mind you somehow got lucky and created all of this. So either God exist and your just not smart enough to explain the power he has or we somehow got extremely lucky by a big boom in the sky. |
Yes well you forgot that somethings don't go along with amazing harmony but rather the opposite. Funny you always point to the good things.
Blue skieshttp://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/photos/cape_cod/images/blue%20sky%20sailboat.jpg
Happy children http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/DOCSwr/_assets/annual_report07/images/overview_kids.jpg
Beatiful views http://beng.telenet.be/images/eigenfoto/0530-1343TunnelView.jpg
And forget that there are some bad things too, like smallpox aids etc..
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| So my major point is this, its not about what I beleive its about what you beleive. I am content with what I beleive. So whatever probality you want to give say 1/1,000,000,000,000 that God exist and Jesus died on the cross then there is something you should consider. |
What? The probality is either 0 or 1.
It's truth or not nothing to do with probality.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| If you die and get to heaven and find out you were wrong your punishment is hell. cold sounding I know but I can explain why it works this way if you like but nonetheless while you scream in pain from the suffering in this place all of your intelligence about science isnt going to help you one bit. |
There is no proof of this of course and if we were to go church tommorow to get into heaven it won't work because a God like in the bible would know what you are trying.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Your Spiritaul ingorance is what well put you in this place. If I am right and there was one man named Jesus who suffered all He did just so you dont have to go to hell wouldnt you one be grateful and two think that it is worth checking out. |
Re-checking what? There is no proof for the whole biblical story i checked it alright. And really are you trying to scare me into religion?
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| I dont learn this science crap because I want to be a scientist. I learn it because I cannot fight science with faith unless somehow my words can cut thru this evo bull and reach someones heart. |
Firstly you are badly learning this science crap because you want to hang on to your petty "earth is 6000 years old" belief
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Its not so I can add your name to some special club Im in its because of what I beleive I know that if I am right you will suffer I fate I would not wish on anyone so I will try to help anyone aviod that place that I can. It may take me a long time to learn all this but I am young and I have a long time to learn. |
However we don't want your "help". Most of us are skeptical and if you present some proof that might convince us, however there is none.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| So all who reads this remember just because you dont believe in God doesnt mean He doesnt beleive in you. Despite what you beleive He loves you and wants you to join him in Heaven. |
BLABLABLA well known bullshit. there is still no proof of this. Present some proof all you have are lies, and CReAtionist Propaganda
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:52 pm; edited 4 times in total | DavidkChase wrote: |
| I dont have time tonight to devote to what is currently underway but I will send this message. Every single piece of evidence that doesnt agree with your evolution theory you consider garbage so you can think what you want. |
LOL.
No - every single piece of evidence that YOU produce IS garbage and I have comprehensively demonstrated as much. It is not a case of what I think - I have refuted your crap, point by point, in detail. I have also provided links to more detailed refutation by published scientists in the field. It is hardly my fault that you keep posting crap is it? Also, you don't even seem to know the difference between radiometric dating and evolution...that is a bit sad.
I have given you the universally agreed method of providing GOOD science - simply provide references to PUBLISHED science from the peer-reviewed journals. You can't do that of course because creationists DON'T PUBLISH any science in peer-reviewed journals - they can't because they don't do proper science. | Quote: |
| And what do you know you cant prove anything. |
It appears I know a great deal more than you, but that really isn't saying much. | Quote: |
| I could say the same about you. |
No - I don't post creationist lies and I justify my points logically and where needed with citations and proper references. | Quote: |
| Here we have a world that surely shows intelligent design but you dont see that. |
No I don't - because it doesn't. | Quote: |
| No you see that by chance a big boom created everything and now we live on a planet that is just the right distance from the sun so we dont either burn or freeze, we have a moon in a great place in the sky that gives lesser light and somehow you want to beleive that plants evolved which happen to help us survive and humans came from bacteria. Some how all these things and many more I didnt mention work at a amazing harmony but you want to beleive that one single act in space billions of years ago which hasnt happened agaiin mind you somehow got lucky and created all of this. So either God exist and your just not smart enough to explain the power he has or we somehow got extremely lucky by a big boom in the sky. |
More nonsense. I have provided evidence from published science for my points. You have provided lies from creationist websites for your points. Who do you think has provided the better data? You don't even know your own beliefs - you can't answer basic questions from the bible (when was the flood?). LOL.
Now you run out of creationist lies and resort to repeating generalised crap that we have seen many times before. You conflate BB, evolution and abiogenesis - despite being previously told that they are different - and you try to ridicule scientific theory by applying your own silly labels to it. This is the behaviour of a petulant child. | Quote: |
| So my major point is this, its not about what I beleive its about what you beleive. I am content with what I beleive. So whatever probality you want to give say 1/1,000,000,000,000 that God exist and Jesus died on the cross then there is something you should consider. If you die and get to heaven and find out you were wrong your punishment is hell. cold sounding I know but I can explain why it works this way if you like but nonetheless while you scream in pain from the suffering in this place all of your intelligence about science isnt going to help you one bit. Your Spiritaul ingorance is what well put you in this place. If I am right and there was one man named Jesus who suffered all He did just so you dont have to go to hell wouldnt you one be grateful and two think that it is worth checking out. |
You really are pathetic. You keep falling back to this lame argument time after time - because it is the only argument you have. You claim to want a debate based on the science and logic, but as soon as you run out of logic, and your 'science' is shown to be bogus, you resort to threats of hell, like a spoiled child sulking because he can't have an ice-cream. I know the bible at least as well as you do (and I actually think a great deal better). The difference is that I also know the science and history. Ignorance is most certainly not bliss, as you should realise.
You seriously think that anyone who doesn't accept the world is 6000 years old is going to hell? That would be most Christians, most Muslims and nearly everyone else. What a small, petty and selfish world you live in. Who are you to say whether others will go to hell or not? I suggest you read Matthew 7:1 and try to understand what it means. | Quote: |
| I dont learn this science crap because I want to be a scientist. I learn it because I cannot fight science with faith unless somehow my words can cut thru this evo bull and reach someones heart. |
In other words you are a liar. You previously said you wanted to learn and decide based on the science. You said you were prepared to be convinced by the evidence - so I spent time and effort providing it. Now you finally admit your real agenda - basically you want to appear to refute good science with creationist pseudo-science as part of your evangelical crusade to persuade people to buy into your nonsense.
Unfortunately for you I won't let you get away with such dishonesty on these forums. Why is it that creationists nearly always turn out to be liars? Does it say in the bible that lying is OK as long as it is 'for God'? I don't think so... | Quote: |
| Its not so I can add your name to some special club Im in its because of what I beleive I know that if I am right you will suffer I fate I would not wish on anyone so I will try to help anyone aviod that place that I can. It may take me a long time to learn all this but I am young and I have a long time to learn. |
You will learn nothing, based on what I have seen here (and you can take that as a professional opinion if you like). You have been provided with the best evidence that there is, and, instead of trying to read and understand it, you simply google creationist pseudo-science, which you don't understand, and post it as if it actually meant something. You are, like most (all?) creationists I have come across, fundamentally dishonest and incapable of seeing anything outside your blinkered and fallacious religious dogma.
I really don't mind what you choose to believe - that is your business. When, however, you claim that the science which refutes your belief is wrong, you should be prepared to back that up with facts. You can't do that, of course, and when someone calls you out on it you resort to your true colours.
Last edited by Bikerman on Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:38 pm; edited 4 times in totalI expanded it;
http://www.frihost.com/forums/posting.php?mode=editpost&p=790554
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:44 pm; edited 1 time in total | Klaw 2 wrote: |
Well some people do think that,
and I wonder besides the radiation decay that shows us that the world is a few billion years old, what about the speed of light?
Some galaxys are so far away that if the universe is only 6000 years old. That light wouldn't have reached us.
So how do you explain that? Light is going slower and slower? |
Here's an interesting little exercise based on this for anyone who fancies doing some arithmetic.
Assume that YECs are right and the universe is 6000 years old.
Take the current speed of light as c and the furthest observed light source as 13,000,000,000 light years away.
Assume that light has decreased in speed in a linear manner from 6000 years ago to the present.
What speed would light have been travelling a year ago?
(Express your answer in terms of c)
First correct answer gets 100FRIH$ | Bikerman wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | Well some people do think that,
and I wonder besides the radiation decay that shows us that the world is a few billion years old, what about the speed of light?
Some galaxys are so far away that if the universe is only 6000 years old. That light wouldn't have reached us.
So how do you explain that? Light is going slower and slower? |
Here's an interesting little exercise based on this for anyone who fancies doing some arithmetic.
Assume that YECs are right and the universe is 6000 years old.
Take the current speed of light as c and the furthest observed light source as 13,000,000,000 light years away.
Assume that light has decreased in speed in a linear manner from 6000 years ago to the present.
What speed would light have been travelling a year ago?
(Express your answer in terms of c)
First correct answer gets 100FRIH$ |
I'm not great with light years, but...
I assume that the world is exactly 6000 years old.
A particle traveling 13,000,000,000 light years is 13,000,000,000 years underway.
So 13,000,000,000/6000 = (about) 2,166,000 faster in AVERAGE.
Lets say today the today the light is as it was established. (iow normal speed of light)
And that the decay of speed of light is linear.
I draw a graph with linear to day its starts with 2*2,166,666=4,333,333
and ends at today with 1 linear so
4,333,333-1= 4,333,332
Each year the dacay is the same so.
4,333,332/6000 = 722.2
That mean that last year it was 722.2 times faster.
or 722.2 C
This is is my first math in weeks so i might screwed up...
But the shocking thing is that. Quite soon light has come to a complete standstill and we can't see anything anymore.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:01 pm; edited 1 time in totalBob on matey*....you win the prize....donation on its way.
*translation from colloqueal English = 'exactly right my good man'
| Bikerman wrote: |
Bob on matey*....you win the prize....donation on its way.
*translation from colloqueal English = 'exactly right my good man' |
Yay!
ok and some other thing if assuming the same decay rate of 722.2 a year.
That mean that in...
1-722.2*x=0
722.2*x = 1
x = 1/722.2
That means that in over just half a day light has completely stopped, and we can't see anything nor infrared, all plants will die within weeks after all other life will follow only people who live really close to some stash of food will survive, (if they can find it) but after that runs out...It's actually worse than that
If light (em radiation) stops then everything stops. Can't have information travelling faster than light (relativity) therefore ...... oops You claimed that creationist never send anything to be peer to peer.
| Quote: |
| With the release of several key peer-reviewed papers at the recent ICC (International Conference on Creationism), it is clear that RATE has made some fantastic progress, with real breakthroughs in this area. |
Sourcehttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp
I suppose because its a creationist its all lies huh. I have been short on time due to work lately but I will respond to everything said so dont think I am trying to ignore anything. | Bikerman wrote: |
It's actually worse than that
If light (em radiation) stops then everything stops. Can't have information travelling faster than light (relativity) therefore ...... oops |
Lolz really that mean that.. oh my we will be effectivly dead in half a day, goddamit quickly need to find some nice girlfriend... any volonteers here?
And I still want to bungee-jump. 
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| You claimed that creationist never send anything to be peer to peer. |
Send peer to peer, ROFLASC.
No its peer-reviewed than means that a certain paper "survived the scientific arena" where ideas, findings etc. are tested and retested. Nthing to do with peer to peer that's the realm of mostly (illegal) downloading. And some with gaming.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | | With the release of several key peer-reviewed papers at the recent ICC (International Conference on Creationism), it is clear that RATE has made some fantastic progress, with real breakthroughs in this area. |
Sourcehttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp
I suppose because its a creationist its all lies huh. I have been short on time due to work lately but I will respond to everything said so dont think I am trying to ignore anything. |
Firstly they got something in, however what is it about? What does it state? And isn't it another god of the gaps?
But DavidkChase since you talked about ID why don't you take my little quiz? Just take 30 seconds to look at it and answer.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:30 pm; edited 1 time in total | Quote: |
And what a pack of nonsense it is. You 'see flaws' because you don't really understand what you are talking about and you look for specific YEC criticisms. If you take YECs seriously then of course you will find flaws. If, however, you actually understand the science and read what the actual scientists say then you will soon find that the YECs are lying, misleading, or simply wrong.
|
I still am trying to learn but you dont really want to wait for me to learn all of this before I respond. I have alot of things that I do so to be able to sit down an my computer to study is something I get to do between work, time with the wife, and numerous other things.
| Quote: |
| 1) K-Ar dating is NOT the most common technique - lie number 1. Pb-Ur/Pb-Pb dating is the most refined and widely used technique. Neither are the other techniques mentioned - Ar-Ar for example. |
You misread something. I didnt say or did the guy say it is the most common, he said according to 4 of your sceince textbooks that it was the method that for the majority was used for the geological time scale.
| Quote: |
2) The article states 'many of these dates disagree'. No number is given for 'many'. Let me supply a number - it is approximately 5%. Sometimes this is due to contamination and sometimes due to being inappropriately used. K-Ar dating is only really useful for samples older than 2 million years at the specific lab in question - Geocron (something which, again, the article fails to mention).
|
He said it "hundreds of thousands were measured and not listed" which he is getting this information from these textbooks. If only 800 were used then fine 5% of hundereds of thousands didnt agree with each other and the others were just discarded for what reason? Maybe they agreed but gave a age that was not acceptable to those doing the test. Why were these other dates not added because they didnt tell them what they wanted to see?
| Quote: |
The article does not mention that in most cases a variety of techniques are used and only when there is agreement between the techniques is a firm age allocated.
|
Maybe if you read the site you will see him talk that many techniques are used and when they are agree it is given a date.
| Quote: |
4) The notion that argon seeps up from the earth and permeates the rock samples is simply wrong. Radioactive argon is trapped in the crystal lattice structure of the rocks when the molten rock solidifies. Once cooled the rock is impermeable to argon and other gasses apart from surface contamination. Labs know this, of course, and do not use surface rock in their samples.
|
He never said it seeps up from the ground he claims that a rock which is already in the interior of the earth may be exposed to other rocks around it. I have a answer for your rock being impermeable but that would require me using the flood as a possiblity and using a creationist site which I cant used them because you like to sit on them and take a huge crap. He didnt say to use surface rocks.
| Quote: |
5) The statement that glaucony (glauconite) is used for a majority of datings is incorrect. Geochronologists are well aware that glauconite is not reliable for K/Ar dating and would only do such dating to compare with other methodologies.
|
A large number of K-Ar dates on which the geological time scale is based, are dates from a mineral called glaucony. However, many geologists say that this mineral is highly unreliable for dating. So here we have a large part of the geological time scale based on a mineral which geologists themselves say is highly unreliable.
This is what he said and we are talking about the geological time scale not dating in general. I had a starting point which I was going to work up to the rest.
You didnt comment on how rocks that were created from volcanoes that erupted recently in the last 100 years also show that they are millions of years old dispite we know they are not? Why did you ignore this or does your talkorigins site have nothing on this.according to the article.
| Quote: |
| The landmark RATE paper1, though technical, can be summarized as follows: |
| Quote: |
5. Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years. |
wide range of temperatures?
What temperatures?
What temperature was the specimen in?
And how does it affect the leakage?
Isn't it logical that the more Helium the older?
And how many fragments were tested? (1?)
Is that then enough?
However I will leave bikerman (if he wants to) to handle this and explain in words.
I will search the internet and see what I can dig up on them.
One google search later. On peer-review creationist.
http://www.slate.com/id/2184384/entry/2184386/
important:
| Quote: |
| Normally, peer review is a valuable step in the publication of scientific research. Scholars submit new discoveries to academic journals, which, in turn, solicit independent experts to assess the reliability of the work. |
| Quote: |
| Answers Research Journal, a new "professional, peer-reviewed technical" publication of "interdisciplinary scientific … research," has streamlined this process by inviting the submitting scholars to suggest who should review their work (Page 5). |
And where was it published?
| Quote: |
| The journal is published by Answers in Genesis, "an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry" that also runs the Creation Museum. |
Not an all trustworthy site then huh?
By-passing the peer-review is NOT scientific it's cheating. And basically taking a piss in the fountain of knowlage.
On the same google page
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9715114-7.html
| Quote: |
| Creationists are adapting another element of the traditional scientific realm to their cause: the peer-reviewed journal. |
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_32/ai_n25376805
| Quote: |
| Finally, creationists have a peer-reviewed journal. Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.com), the same nonsensical outlet that has given us Ken Ham's Creation Museum, recently launched a "peer reviewed" "technical" journal, called, of course, Answers Research Journal. |
And then I added RATE group to the search.
http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item14.htm
Just read it.
| Quote: |
1. There were gross miscalculations in the data.
2. The wrong rock type was sampled.
3. Proper precautions were not taken to eliminate possible contamination.
4. Equations were based on invalid assumptions.
5. The authors relied on questionable data.
6. "Miracles" (verboten in real science) were used to explain away contradictory data. |
Another piece of
CReAtionist Propaganda
D
E
B
U
N
K
E
D Holy crap; has anyone read about THIS? I just lost the minuscule amount of respect I had for Christian/Biblical organizations @Klaw2
I've given up responding to David directly, since he seems incapable of understanding simple logic (or even simple English). I have repeatedly said that science is tested 'by peer-review IN JOURNALS OF REPUTE' - but he seems to have missed that bit. The fact is that I know of NOT ONE SINGLE PAPER on radiometric dating by a creationist apologist that has been published in ANY journal of repute.
As you rightly point out, the creationist lobby realised that they could not get published (because they do crap science), so they set-up their own 'peer-review' journal - it is a joke and no scientist takes it seriously. There are a number of journals of repute in this particular field of science but 'Answers in Genesis' do not publish any of them (nor do they publish anything of repute in any field of science).
As for RATE - it is already widely discredited amongst those scientists who can be bothered to read the findings (not many, since the findings, of course, have never appeared in any journal of repute). I've already given links to a complete debunking of RATE, but just in case they were missed:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-decay_theory#Radioisotopes_and_the_Age_of_the_Earth_project
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
(Unfortunately it is not possible to give links to a proper published response to RATE since RATE has never published in the journals)
Anyone interested in proper scientific understanding of geochronology would be well advised to get hold of one of the standard texts (but they are pricey). There is a useful 'noddy' guide at the Geocron website:
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html
and other useful web resources are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometrically_dated
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
I'll leave you to debunk any more crap from David on this issue - I think I've posted all the information anyone could reasonably want on radiometric dating.
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:30 am; edited 1 time in total *facepalm*
Was that at me or Bikerman? 
Sorry, I should have been more clear... that was at the geocentrists. I read what you linked to, and words just could not express my dismay at learning that there are still people out there who think that way... though I suppose by now I should be beyond being surprised by the depths that human stupidity can reach.
I felt sick to my stomach when I read that too...I mean, do these people not have a brain? And all this comes from the Association of Biblical Astronomy!
Erm...are there any Biblical organizations that claim the world is flat? Just curious.. | Bikerman wrote: |
| The notion that argon seeps up from the earth and permeates the rock samples is simply wrong |
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| He never said it seeps up from the ground |
*sighs* | Crap-In-Question wrote: |
| So we can explain the old K-Ar dates just by the fact that rocks absorb so much argon that comes up from the interior of the earth. |
*mutters* | Crap-In-Question wrote: |
| Older rocks would have more time to absorb argon, and there was probably more argon coming through the earth at the time of the Flood and shortly thereafter than there is today. |
*walks away from keyboard muttering about dishonest creationist pantywaisters* | Soulfire wrote: |
| First of all, know that I do not fully buy into creationism, and the point I want you to get from this post is that you can make the Bible mean whatever you want it to. |
No problem - but a couple of observations for you:
a) There is 'knowing' and there is 'observing'. We didn't observe the first life, true, but we are pretty damn certain what it was - from multiple lines of evidence. The same goes for the order in which the main phyla appeared.
You probably didn't observe your great great grandparents, but you would probably be happy to say that you know they existed - from multiple lines of evidence.
b) The notion that the english word for afternoon didn't come about until the 13th century is correct but entirely irrelevant. The bible was written in Hebrew and Greek - both of which have perfectly servicable words for afternoon. The KJV translation of the bible I used was written in 1611 and most other English translations date from the 16th Century onwards.Hmm...I have a quick question but before that:
I believe God created the universe, however many years ago science claims (14 billion I think it was) in six different phases/cycles, He caused the BB, He set everything in its due course which caused the Earth to form, set evolution in a direction that would lead to where He wanted it and, well, allows science to work as science works.
Now for the question:
Am I a creationist?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Am I a creationist? |
No not by my definition and not by the commonly used definition.
Creationism is the | Quote: |
| religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist
I'd say you were a 'bog standard' theist, verging on Deist
(a deist believes that God kicked it off and that was it - no intervention after the initial 'bang', whereas I think you are saying that God intervened at 5 or 6 set periods after the 'bang' to create different things, which would make you, I think, a theist) | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Erm...are there any Biblical organizations that claim the world is flat? Just curious.. |
Well, you could claim, with some justification, that the bible itself says the world is flat and therefore anyone who really takes it literally should be a flat-earther...
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm | Quote: |
Well, you could claim, with some justification, that the bible itself says the world is flat and therefore anyone who really takes it literally should be a flat-earther...
|
Now where do you get that from? One I know you will use is the four corners of the earth right which we have North, South, East, and West.
Not to mention the Bible says the earth is round.
| Quote: |
Isaiah 40:22 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
|
I highly doubt that the Bible meant a flat circle, a circle could mean oh maybe a sphere?
While I am on if you dont want to respond to me anymore thats fine but I have one final question and one comment.
One is your name Bikerman in the sense of a bike you pedal or perhaps a harley just wondering?
You want to talk about bad science but radiometric dating is based on the ASSUMPTION that the decay is constant. I will give you all the way back to 1896 for this discovery so the fact remains you may know what the rate is today or in 1896 and up but you dont know what it was 1000 years ago.
If the speed of light which was thought to be a constant which you have admited is now not a constant then what is there to say that radioactive decay was not faster in the past. The fact remains and argue if you must but you cannot say that for a fact that you know what the rate was 1000 years ago or a million years ago for that fact. If it could be proven that the decay rate is not constant and it was faster in the past would you accept it(considering this evidence would go thru your special panel of aethist evolutionist) or would you still cling to your current beleifs so you can justify yourself in not beleiving in God. You still didnt answer the question about the volcano rocks that were created within the last 100 years that give dates in the millions. Or are you just going to ignore that question. Sorry that turned out to be more than one question. | DavidkChase wrote: |
| Now where do you get that from? |
Chronicles 16:30: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.
Psalm 93:1: Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm
Psalm 96:10: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable
Psalm 104:5: Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.
Isaiah 45:18: ...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...
Isaiah 11:12: And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
Revelation 7:1: And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
Job 38:13: That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
Jeremiah 16:19: O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)
Daniel 4:11: The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
Matthew 4:8: Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)
That's just from the two links that Bikerman gave... 
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | Well, you could claim, with some justification, that the bible itself says the world is flat and therefore anyone who really takes it literally should be a flat-earther...
|
Now where do you get that from? One I know you will use is the four corners of the earth right which we have North, South, East, and West.
Not to mention the Bible says the earth is round. |
Yes round like a PLATE maybe but not spherical.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | Isaiah 40:22 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
|
I highly doubt that the Bible meant a flat circle, a circle could mean oh maybe a sphere? |
If the bible said spherical it would be right
But a circle is a circle like your dinner plate, so the bible states that the earth was flat, denying this is stupid. Back in the darkages the belief was that the earth was flat and had an end. Why? Because the bible said it, even so people who stated otherwise were heretics and back then they weren't nice to you if you were one.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
While I am on if you dont want to respond to me anymore thats fine but I have one final question and one comment.
One is your name Bikerman in the sense of a bike you pedal or perhaps a harley just wondering? |
No a bad ass biker as in:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tDKAQ2AkIZk LOL
He talked about motorcycles in the hobbys part. You have nothing more to say on this discussion so you start to try insult people? NV
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| You want to talk about bad science but radiometric dating is based on the ASSUMPTION that the decay is constant. I will give you all the way back to 1896 for this discovery so the fact remains you may know what the rate is today or in 1896 and up but you dont know what it was 1000 years ago.? |
It's always the same bikerman gave many many links etc. but if you want to be just stupid...
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| If the speed of light which was thought to be a constant which you have admited is now not a constant. |
wait wait we never said that. IF the earth is 6000 years then it had a decay rate, a rather ridiculus one too. You twist things we say NV.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| then what is there to say that radioactive decay was not faster in the past. The fact remains and argue if you must but you cannot say that for a fact that you know what the rate was 1000 years ago or a million years ago for that fact. |
If it was different? How? Any scientific theories.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| If it could be proven that the decay rate is not constant and it was faster in the past would you accept it(considering this evidence would go thru your special panel of aethist evolutionist) or would you still cling to your current beleifs so you can justify yourself in not beleiving in God. |
firstly there is no proof.
But I think that most smart people will accept that the earth is not as old as firstly thought. However it will not be a proof of god.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| You still didnt answer the question about the volcano rocks that were created within the last 100 years that give dates in the millions. Or are you just going to ignore that question. Sorry that turned out to be more than one question. |
Because... there is a problem but only with vulcano tocks. They were molten so it could get contaminated with some other stuff wich gives the wrong date.
A few questions for you:
Everything you posted every piece of CRAP has been debuked, and still you continue to move the goalposts. Wich is completely un-debate like. Why do you continue?
If this were a debate you would have lost by far with 0 - 10 or something you can keep posting pieces of CRAP but there's no point because it is CRAP! Why do you continue?
Scientists DON'T CARE WHAT THE TRUTH IS. If they find out that god really exists, that means that knowlage has grown and they would be happy with it. They only want to find out the truth. However the evidence doesn't point to god or an 6000 year old world. And for creationist it goes the wrong way. So they question the things that bother them, and only those. I NEVER heard an creationist deney gravity. Why? Because it doesn't conflict with their biased views.
Creationists like yourself on the otherhand wan't to hold on to your petty beliefs that the bible is 100% right etc. It is not, it is painfully wrong from the age of the earth, the shape. To how the different kind of species came around.
And at the end of the day you will just have one thing left: you will scream that we go to hell.
EDIT1: Or try to convert us.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:42 am; edited 4 times in total | DavidkChase wrote: |
You want to talk about bad science but radiometric dating is based on the ASSUMPTION that the decay is constant. I will give you all the way back to 1896 for this discovery so the fact remains you may know what the rate is today or in 1896 and up but you dont know what it was 1000 years ago.
If the speed of light which was thought to be a constant which you have admited is now not a constant then what is there to say that radioactive decay was not faster in the past. The fact remains and argue if you must but you cannot say that for a fact that you know what the rate was 1000 years ago or a million years ago for that fact. If it could be proven that the decay rate is not constant and it was faster in the past would you accept it(considering this evidence would go thru your special panel of aethist evolutionist) or would you still cling to your current beleifs so you can justify yourself in not beleiving in God. You still didnt answer the question about the volcano rocks that were created within the last 100 years that give dates in the millions. Or are you just going to ignore that question. Sorry that turned out to be more than one question. |
The reason I don't want to talk to you is very simple - there is no point wasting time on dishonest people since you never know whether what they say is truth or fantasy. There are two good examples of this above.
1) I have never said that c is not constant (and I should clarify that we are talking about c - the speed of light in vacuum) - in fact I have repeatedly said just the opposite in many threads. Yet you choose to lie and say I did 'admit' such a thing...why is that?
This is, of course, a typical creationist tactic and I shouldn't really be surprised. What does puzzle me is how you manage to reconcile lying with your fundamentalist religious beliefs. Surely there is something in the bible about this?
The speed of light in vacuum (c) IS constant and there is no evidence otherwise (apart from some speculation about the very early universe just after the BB - and that is far too technical to explain to you in this forum - better suited to the science forum - and it doesn't have any real impact on this debate in any case since any such variation was very short-lived).
What I did was say IF WE ASSUME.....and then I went on to point out how ridiculous that assumption would be, by doing the simple arithmetic (or, I should say, Klaw2 did the arithmetic, which agreed with my own). Anyone doubting this can simply scroll back and read the postings above..
2) Then we move to the next lie - 'a panel of atheist evolutionists' [sic].
Complete fantasy. Many scientists are theists and peer-review panels can, and do, often contain scientists with a faith. The issue of faith is entirely irrelevant to their role as a peer-reviewer - that job is a scientific role, not a religious role. No potential reviewer would be excluded because of their faith - that would be illegal as well as scientifically incorrect. Peer-reviewers are chosen because they are eminent scientists in the particular field concerned.
The implication that evolution and atheism are somehow synonymous is simply wrong. The fact is that many (even most) religious people accept evolution. It is only creationists such as yourself who deny it and try to construct ridiculous fantasies to explain how the bible could be literally correct. Most Christians gave up doing that a long time ago.
Any scientist must examine the evidence dispassionately and accept the theory that best explains the data (whilst, of course, continually looking for more data and even better theories). If they can't do that, for whatever reason, then they have no business calling themselves a scientist. Science requires honesty - you should learn something from that...
The decay constant has been thoroughly dealt with in preceding posts - if you can't be bothered to read then I can't be bothered to repeat. Of course, if it could be shown that it has altered, I would accept it - that is how science works (unlike your dogma) - it would be interesting and open up many new avenues of research. The fact is, however, that it has NOT been shown to alter, and, if it did alter the consequences would be measurable. We find no such evidence, and therefore we have both theoretical and observational data which supports the notion that it has not altered, and no theory or data to support the notion that it has. In such a case the only honest thing to do is to accept that it has not altered. The only people who suggest it could have altered are creationists. They offer no mechanism for such a change, and admit that any such change would raise the temperature of the Earth by thousands of degrees and turn it into a radioactive waste (read the RATE document - this is clearly stated). Since this obviously didn't happen then we rightly conclude that the decay rate has remained constant.
The dating of 100yr old volcanic rocks is also dealt with in the links I provided and, indirectly, in one of my previous postings. I will summarise this from memory - but I would advise people to check the exact details for themselves..
Essentially what happened is that creationists sent a new volcanic sample to a lab (Geocron) for dating - not revealing, of course, its origin. The method of dating used by Geocron is only accurate for rocks of above a couple of million years in age - before that time the error-range is such that it returns no meaningful age. The lab makes this quite clear in their documentation, and warns all potential customers of this limitation (the creationists dishonestly ignored this).
The lab duly reported that they could only say that it was at the lower end of their age-dating abilities (I think, from memory, that would have been 2 million years). There is nothing mysterious about this - if you use a technique designed to measure rocks of a certain age, it will naturally not be able to produce meaningful results when applied to rocks outside that range. That is why we have experts in geochronology who can use their professional judgement to apply the correct method to a particular sample, and who rely on the honesty of the customer in reporting where the sample was found and under what conditions, in order that the correct methodology can be determined. It should be no surprise that dishonesty results in anomolous results. Had the creationists informed the lab of the circumstances then the lab would have certainly told them that their technology was inappropriate for dating such samples and would almost certainly produce an anomolous result. It is similar to trying to measure an atom with a tape-measure. The only answer you could honestly give would be 'less than 1 millimetre'.
The fact remains that there are numerous examples of rocks being dated to about 3.4-3.8 billion years old, and these results have been repeated using different techniques to confirm the data.
A number of samples from Greenland, for example, were analysed using all the common techniques. The following results were obtained:
| www.asa3.org wrote: |
Method..............Age in billions of years (with error margin)
uranium-lead..............3.60±0.05
lead-lead(1)................3.56±0.10
lead-lead(2)................3.74±0.12
lead-lead(3)................3.62±0.13
rubidium-strontium(1)..3.64±0.06
rubidium-strontium(2)..3.62±0.14
rubidium-strontium(3)..3.67±0.09
rubidium-strontium(4)..3.66±0.10
rubidium-strontium(5)..3.61±0.22
rubidium-strontium(6)..3.56±0.14
lutetium-hafnium.........3.55±0.22
samarium-neodymium.3.56±0.20
(source - Dalrymple 1991) |
That, in science, would count as a conclusive result, since all of the ranges overlap and agree between 3.62 and 3.65 billion years.
Now - I've dealt with your questions, despite my reluctance to engage with liars. Let that be an end of it. If you decide to stop telling lies and post honestly, then I will consider your postings and reply where appropriate. Until that time there is no point.
PS my nickname was chosen to reflect my interest in motorcycles - as it says in my profile.
[later addition]
PPS a Harley is a brand of motorcyle. A chopper is a type. You can have Harley choppers, Yamaha choppers, Triumph choppers etc. A chopper is any motorcycle that has been customised (normally to include long front forks and a small front wheel). I personally do not like Harleys - they sound great but they are expensive and you need to spend a lot to get any performance out of them. They are much better suited to US freeways than the twisty roads where I live. I prefer my Yamaha YZF1000.
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:34 pm; edited 2 times in totalI want to make a few things clear.
| Quote: |
He talked about motorcycles in the hobbys part. You have nothing more to say on this discussion so you start to try insult people? Little spoiled kids do that.
|
When I read this and you call me a spoiled kid or child I have one thing come to mind, you need to learn to STFU. At least Bikerman puts intelligence behind everything he says other than you who may know more than me on this subject but you still have some kind of diarahea of the mouth.
So that you may know my question about is name was a genuine one simply because I too have a interest in motorcycles. I prefer the look of the chopper but its not as conforable as a harley. Which both have the most awesome sound.
And even if he was not talking about a motorcycle and he rides a bicycle for either exercise or races or whatever how in the world could that be a insult. your a retard.
This goes to Bikerman. Despite my dissagreement with you and we both only have one thing in common, beleiving the other beleives in total crap. Let be clear that I do appreciate the time and effort you take to answer my questions. So in other words thank you. | DavidkChase wrote: |
I want to make a few things clear.
| Quote: | He talked about motorcycles in the hobbys part. You have nothing more to say on this discussion so you start to try insult people? Little spoiled kids do that.
|
When I read this and you call me a spoiled kid or child I have one thing come to mind, you need to learn to STFU. At least Bikerman puts intelligence behind everything he says other than you who may know more than me on this subject but you still have some kind of diarahea of the mouth.
So that you may know my question about is name was a genuine one simply because I too have a interest in motorcycles. I prefer the look of the chopper but its not as conforable as a harley. Which both have the most awesome sound.
And even if he was not talking about a motorcycle and he rides a bicycle for either exercise or races or whatever how in the world could that be a insult. your a retard. |
Well well well, the cat is out of the bag, well. True Bikerman didn't post any crap. And I think that I also have some knowlage about certain things. You on the otherhand twist things to YOUR will you simply lie, and well if it wasn't an attack well sorry about that one spoiled child incident.
Also if you didn't try o insult any people your not a spoiled child according to that reasoning.
However you lied about things we said you twisted them to fit YOUR world view, wich is according to all the evidence on the world is WRONG. And maybe possibly that is where the spoiled child idea came from.
Besides you have siply ignored all our evidence and just about never said anything nor answered our questions about your posts. We tell you that radiometric dating is right and you keep bringing the same arguments there is no point. Well sometimes my finger slip me and I may type things that are insulting but just sometimes it is based on some facts, combined with some opinion and how I think it is best put into perspective. I don't delete them unless some moderator will do so, or asks me to do that EDIT or i cool down and we talk it ut .
But you keep reposting the same stuff over and over maybe you are the one who had to say nothing and think very deeply, what am I doing? Is there a point to try to post these things?
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| This goes to Bikerman. Despite my dissagreement with you and we both only have one thing in common, beleiving the other beleives in total crap. Let be clear that I do appreciate the time and effort you take to answer my questions. So in other words thank you. |
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:43 am; edited 3 times in total | Quote: |
1) I have never said that c is not constant (and I should clarify that we are talking about c - the speed of light in vacuum) - in fact I have repeatedly said just the opposite in many threads. Yet you choose to lie and say I did 'admit' such a thing...why is that?
|
My mistake, I missunderstand what you wrote so I am sorry.
| Quote: |
| The issue of faith is entirely irrelevant to their role as a peer-reviewer - that job is a scientific role, not a religious role. |
If that is the case then what doest it matter if the rate group handpicked their peers. Honestly you have said in the past that they never submit. You said why is because they know it will be thrown out cause it would be garbage or bad science. So what that means to me is your peers would probally discard it without truly looking at it so really these creationist scienctist really have no chance. I admit though they should of tried. They could of submited to your regular peers and their hand picked.
I only beleive in creation because I beleive the Bible is true to what it says. So if science says the world is older then I'm inclined to beleive we just cant explain it yet. Just so you know Im not a complete idiot. I graduated hichschool at the age of 15. I did do some college to become a cna but when that didnt pan out I went to get my associates degree which would lead to my bachelors in IT.
Due to a nasty divorce I am going thru I have had to postpone my education. I pick IT cause I have a gift with computers for some reason.
I dont think I plan on debating radiometric dating but maybe the flood after I do some research. But Bikerman I do have one thing I would like to add. Dispite your scientific standings I do implore you to seek God. Im not saying that you have to beleive what the Bible says. And please note this is coming from my heart. As I told Klaw I tell people or debate about these things is because I dont wish hell on anyone. Klaw seems to think I have a personal problem with you so I go and insult you. Just because I dont agree with you and argue many things doesnt mean I wouldnt offer you ride if your car broke down or bought you a cup of coffe cause you forgot your wallet. I sincerely hope you at least think about the possiblity of God, I would hate to know that you or anyone would pay a dire consequence simply because of not having faith. God bless you. | DavidkChase wrote: |
| If that is the case then what doest it matter if the rate group handpicked their peers. |
It does matter because then you can hand-pick people who will support you ideas no matter how shaky the arguments are.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Honestly you have said in the past that they never submit. You said why is because they know it will be thrown out cause it would be garbage or bad science. So what that means to me is your peers would probally discard it without truly looking at it so really these creationist scienctist really have no chance. I admit though they should of tried. They could of submited to your regular peers and their hand picked. |
No they know it will be rejected creationists don't try to persuade the scientists.
They try to persuade people who don't understand it and try to rally them to get creationism into schools. Wich will be very damaging to knowlage.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| I only beleive in creation because I beleive the Bible is true to what it says. So if science says the world is older then I'm inclined to beleive we just cant explain it yet. |
The funny thing is it has been proven far beyond reasonable doubt.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| I dont think I plan on debating radiometric dating but maybe the flood after I do some research. But Bikerman I do have one thing I would like to add. Dispite your scientific standings I do implore you to seek God. |
I'm not bikerman but that is just...
*dumbstruck*
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Im not saying that you have to beleive what the Bible says. And please note this is coming from my heart. As I told Klaw I tell people or debate about these things is because I dont wish hell on anyone. Klaw seems to think I have a personal problem with you so I go and insult you. |
Well Okay
Aorry about that one time I shal try to constrain me from now. My life took a turn that I wish to no one, however that has caused that I have a short fuse...
Edit okay we talked it out.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:36 am; edited 1 time in total | DavidkChase wrote: |
| If that is the case then what doest it matter if the rate group handpicked their peers. Honestly you have said in the past that they never submit. You said why is because they know it will be thrown out cause it would be garbage or bad science. So what that means to me is your peers would probally discard it without truly looking at it so really these creationist scienctist really have no chance. I admit though they should of tried. They could of submited to your regular peers and their hand picked. |
Peer-reviewers are paid to read the papers they review. They will not simple reject a paper without reading it - that would be both dishonest and unscientific. The creationist journal (ARJ) is a journal on creationism, not science. It only accepts papers within the framework of Young Earth Creationism, and we don't really know who does the 'peer review'.
If you want a peer-review journal on creationism then ARJ is fine. If you want a science journal then ARJ is meaningless drivel.
The reason that creationists want their own journal is, as I said, that they don't do proper science and therefore cannot get their articles accepted by proper science journals. They are aware of this and are probably tired of people like me pointing this out. They therefore set-up their own journal so that they can say they have published in 'peer reviewed journals'. It is just one more example of creationist dishonesty. One the one hand they claim to be scientists and on the other they attempt to subvert the very science that they claim to be a part of. The term 'creation scientist' is as close to an oxymoron as makes no difference.
The really interesting question is why people who obviously have so little regard for proper science would wish to pretend that they are doing proper science themselves.
As a scientist friend of mine comments: 'Aww..they're sooo cute when they play scientist'....
PS - I unwittingly made 2 mistakes which I will now correct
1) I said that creationists have never published anything in the peer-reviewed science journals. It turns out that 1 paper by a supporter of Intelligent Design (the new 'improved' version of creationism) HAS been published in a peer reviewed journal.
Details : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy
This is actually the main subject of the creationist propogandist film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
2) I implied that the ARJ is the only creationist journal - apparently there are 2 - the ARJ and the International Journal for Creation Research (IJCR).
PPS - if you want to debate Flood Geology (Noah's Ark) then I suggest you start with the following reference sites and work your way through.
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.htmlDoes anyone know when the first concept of what a sphere was was published? Perhaps after the time that the Bible was written? If this is the case, then I would argue that "circle" is an accurate representation of the concept of a sphere in said Biblical time.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Does anyone know when the first concept of what a sphere was was published? Perhaps after the time that the Bible was written? If this is the case, then I would argue that "circle" is an accurate representation of the concept of a sphere in said Biblical time. |
Well, the Ancient Greeks certainly knew about spheres - in fact they knew the Earth was a sphere as early as 6th Century BCE which is around the time the bible was put together...
I also find it pretty difficult to believe that the Ancient Egyptians (from whom Moses led the Exodus) would not have been familiar with the concept and basic maths of a sphere. Their 3-D geometry was pretty sophisticated (as we see in the phyramids and associated structures).
