Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
Gigawatts
Junior Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 10
From: Nassau, Bahamas
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 181 of 302 (408269)
07-01-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by jar
07-01-2007 10:48 AM


Re: keeping things on track
Okay, so I'll only be speaking on Genesis 1 now. I will still maintain, however, in this one chapter there is no room for the existence of macro-evolution as the "Christian Clergy" would have you believe from the link you provided. The letter they wrote was filled with ridiculous statements. My favorite is the following quote: "Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth." This author and I seem to have very different definitions of the word "truth". I was under the impression that there is only one truth, something inherently concrete sans exceptions. Warping this definition to allow for multiple accepted answers for a single question would push us into the realm of the unitarian universalists and their adoption of moral relativism. Of course, I realize that just because you referenced something from the Clergy Project, doesn't mean that you accept what they believe. As for me, I will continue to accept the validity of Genesis 1 and it's literal translation long before I ever adopt a belief that something as infinitely complex as the universe we live in created itself out of nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 10:48 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 2:34 PM Gigawatts has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 182 of 302 (408270)
07-01-2007 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Gigawatts
07-01-2007 2:26 PM


Re: keeping things on track
As for me, I will continue to accept the validity of Genesis 1 and it's literal translation long before I ever adopt a belief that something as infinitely complex as the universe we live in created itself out of nothing.
But no one says anything like that except the Biblical Creationists. The problem is that Genesis 1 is absolutely factually wrong.
Of course, I realize that just because you referenced something from the Clergy Project, doesn't mean that you accept what they believe.
Of course I accept what they say. It happens to be true.
I was under the impression that there is only one truth, something inherently concrete sans exceptions.
Again, there are lots of threads on just that subject here but this doesn't happen to be one. If you think that you can support some "one truth" then by all means propose a thread on it and let's see if you can support it.
I will still maintain, however, in this one chapter there is no room for the existence of macro-evolution as the "Christian Clergy" would have you believe from the link you provided.
Macro evolution is yet another subject, again one where there are many threads available for you to explore.
The subject here is whether or not Genesis 1 is accurate, and unfortunately, from a scientific or historical perspective, it is totally false.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 2:26 PM Gigawatts has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 2:46 PM jar has replied

Gigawatts
Junior Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 10
From: Nassau, Bahamas
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 183 of 302 (408272)
07-01-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by jar
07-01-2007 2:34 PM


Re: keeping things on track
Did you mean to say that Biblical creationists are the only ones who claim macro-evolution is a belief that the universe created itself out of nothing? Am I just being too blunt with my description of the theory or is there something I'm missing? How would you describe it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 2:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2007 2:52 PM Gigawatts has replied
 Message 186 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 3:13 PM Gigawatts has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 184 of 302 (408273)
07-01-2007 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Gigawatts
07-01-2007 2:46 PM


Re: keeping things on track
quote:
Did you mean to say that Biblical creationists are the only ones who claim macro-evolution is a belief that the universe created itself out of nothing? Am I just being too blunt with my description of the theory or is there something I'm missing? How would you describe it?
I can't think of anyone else who would make such a glaring mistake. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of the universe. Evolution is part of biology, not physics or astronomy. It is about how life develops and changes over time - not individuals so much as populations or the genes that they contain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 2:46 PM Gigawatts has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 3:06 PM PaulK has replied

Gigawatts
Junior Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 10
From: Nassau, Bahamas
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 185 of 302 (408276)
07-01-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by PaulK
07-01-2007 2:52 PM


Re: keeping things on track
You're right, good catch. What I meant to say is "cosmic evolution". Macro Evolution is the idea of all current lifeforms developing from amoeba. And then there's micro evolution, the only kind I believe...the variety that creates minute changes in a given order of lifeforms (Darwin's finches etc.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2007 2:52 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2007 3:15 PM Gigawatts has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 186 of 302 (408279)
07-01-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Gigawatts
07-01-2007 2:46 PM


short side track
Did you mean to say that Biblical creationists are the only ones who claim macro-evolution is a belief that the universe created itself out of nothing? Am I just being too blunt with my description of the theory or is there something I'm missing? How would you describe it?
No, Biblical Creationists are the only ones that think something like the Universe came from nothing. Macro-evolution is just another case of the ignorance of Biblical Creationists about what the Theory of Evolution actually says. It's off topic here but it is really not a major issue.
Remember, ignorance is not a serious fault if you do something about it. The folk I linked you too, myself and many other folk, are every much a serious Christians, serious about Christianity, serious about our belief in GOD and Jesus as anyone else.
The problem with Genesis 1 is that it gets major factors wrong. It is important theologically but not historically or factually.
The important question is to ask why the redactors that put the Pentateuch together included two mutually exclusive tales. They were intelligent, yet they included these contradictory tales, and went even further and placed the younger of the two tales before the older one.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 2:46 PM Gigawatts has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 3:34 PM jar has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 187 of 302 (408281)
07-01-2007 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Gigawatts
07-01-2007 3:06 PM


Re: keeping things on track
That's not how it's used in biology. Macroevolution is all evolution at the species level or above. Even many creationists believe that new species can evolve.
I don't think you'll find the term "cosmic evolution" in wide use in science. And if it did it'd probably be much more about the formation of stars, galaxies and other bodies - how the unvierse has changed over time since its origin. (There is an idea that universes reproduce and evolve in a similar way to living things but that is probably not discussed often enough to need a special name).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 3:06 PM Gigawatts has not replied

Gigawatts
Junior Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 10
From: Nassau, Bahamas
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 188 of 302 (408284)
07-01-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by jar
07-01-2007 3:13 PM


Re: short side track
Okay, I understand more of where you're coming from now. Just need some more clarification...I'll stop using the term evolution because I seem to be screwing that up. Are you saying you don't believe the big bang theory, and you believe in creation, but just not as it's described in Genesis? Or do you believe something to the effect that God created the big bang? Is it something like that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 3:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 3:42 PM Gigawatts has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 189 of 302 (408287)
07-01-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Gigawatts
07-01-2007 3:34 PM


Re: short side track
I am a Creationist as is every Christian. But right now, the Big Bang as it is called (incorrectly by the way) is the best explanation for what is observed. The various creation tales found in Genesis are factually wrong. It jess ain't how it happened.
I do believe that all we learn from Science including the study of Abiogenesis (the origin of life), Evolution (the origin of species) and Cosmology (the study of the origins of the Universe) are the "How GOD did it" answers.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 3:34 PM Gigawatts has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 4:11 PM jar has replied

Gigawatts
Junior Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 10
From: Nassau, Bahamas
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 190 of 302 (408289)
07-01-2007 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by jar
07-01-2007 3:42 PM


Re: short side track
Thanks for clearing things up there. I'm just not sold on the falsehood of Genesis. Obviously, none of us were there at the beginning of time (be that 6000 years or billions of years ago), but as far as I can tell the modern science that is supposed to disprove Genesis 1 has too many holes in it. I know it's a cheap trick to end this discussion like that without justifying that statement, but i'm actually at work right now and an LE case has come up that requires my attention so I should focus. Thanks for the discussion though

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 3:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by AdminNosy, posted 07-01-2007 4:26 PM Gigawatts has not replied
 Message 192 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 5:09 PM Gigawatts has not replied
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 07-01-2007 10:36 PM Gigawatts has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 191 of 302 (408293)
07-01-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Gigawatts
07-01-2007 4:11 PM


nature of the site
I know it's a cheap trick to end this discussion like that without justifying that statement, but i'm actually at work right now and an LE case has come up that requires my attention so I should focus. Thanks for the discussion though
I should point out that this isn't a chat room. You can take as long as you need to get around to posting answering posts.
You should also understand that the above does appear as a very "cheap trick". We have seen such statements made countless times before. I'm not commenting on your knowledge of the subject since I have no idea what you do and do not know but...
Universally those making such statements no absolutely nothing abut the subject and, worse, have been told lies by a number of creationist organizations and think they do know something. This produces a remarkable resistance to actually learning anything.
You may choose to leave the impression that you are yet another one like we've seen before. You may choose to point out the holes that you are aware of. You may also choose to learn something.
You have as much time as you need to, for example, start a thread giving your understanding of where science is wrong about the age of the earth, the genesis flood or something else that you are comfortable with. You can also browse current threads and add to those.
A good one is the "correlations" thread in "Dates and Dating". None of our oh-so-sure-of-themselves younger earthers ever actually explain the information that RAZD has carefully laid out there. Excuse the suspicion that you won't get the first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 4:11 PM Gigawatts has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 192 of 302 (408309)
07-01-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Gigawatts
07-01-2007 4:11 PM


Back towards Genesis 1.
I'm just not sold on the falsehood of Genesis.
That's fine, but it is also irrelevant. The creation myths in Genesis are wrong and the Genesis 1 Creation myth is absolutely factually wrong.
For example, it has plants appearing on land first (false) and grasses as one of the first plants (false by a long, long, long period) and fruits and seeded plants as the first plants (again totally false).
Obviously, none of us were there at the beginning of time (be that 6000 years or billions of years ago), but as far as I can tell the modern science that is supposed to disprove Genesis 1 has too many holes in it.
Again, totally irrelevant. The fact is that we can determine things that happened in the past even though we were not witnesses. We can test different theories against the evidence and see which stand up to examination. The fact is that Science changes as we learn more, while the Biblical Creation Myths are as wrong today as they were yesterday, as they were 3000 years ago. They will never be right.
We can test them just as we do the Theory of Evolution (as one example) and they simply do not stand up to examination.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 4:11 PM Gigawatts has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 193 of 302 (408330)
07-01-2007 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Gigawatts
07-01-2007 4:11 PM


Re: Genesis 1
I'm just not sold on the falsehood of Genesis. Obviously, none of us were there at the beginning of time (be that 6000 years or billions of years ago), but as far as I can tell the modern science that is supposed to disprove Genesis 1 has too many holes in it.
Science has never disproved nor will it every disprove Genesis 1:1.
Gene 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Science would have to prove that God does not exist to disprove Genesis 1:1.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Gigawatts, posted 07-01-2007 4:11 PM Gigawatts has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 194 of 302 (408335)
07-01-2007 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by ringo
07-01-2007 9:36 AM


quote:
ringo
Again, that's not the question. I'm asking: How can you know it's accurate to 100,000 years when the longest it's been tested for is 6000 years? What you're saying is equivalent to saying that a gun that's sighted at 6000 yards is accurate to 100,000 yards.
No contradiction here. Once you know the workings of velosity and impact, a gun's operation can be deduced for any measurements. This is how we can figure out a sunset tomorrow or the next 10K years - I posted links which 'sell' calendars containing the exact sunset times for any period.
quote:
Again, you haven't shown where any of those fluctuations or inclinations are mentioned in Genesis.
But I did state, the genesis calendar accurately predicts sunsets, sunrises, and harvest seasons, which are vested in actual, mandated commandments in the OT - such details are subsequent to no other factors than the inclinations and fluctuations of the spacial bodies and their impacting movements.
quote:
The calendar is common knowledge. The details in Genesis are not. Show them.
but not the billion second demand: seconds were not discovered yet, remember?
You made the claim in Message 136:
The details are not in declared constants - same with historical dates and places mentioned: this is upto mankind to verify. The billion second claim, although referred to in some links - are exemplary of unequalled accuracy.
quote:
The discussion isn't about the accuracy of our calendar and it isn't about any connection between our calendar and that of the ancient Hebrews. The discussion is about the knowledge they had.
How so - each generation's knowledge is ratio'd to their own spacetime. The view of a flat earth was correct at one spacetime, based on their available data and knowledge; what we know now can be similarly impacted in the future. It requires a big pic view: the constants declared in genesis are applicable for all generations of mankind. There is a mysterious statute in the OT which says the pig has a hidden biological attribute not shared by any other life form: this was only discovered recently - it could not have been known 200 or 3000 years ago.
quote:
The "billionth of a second" can not have any relevance to Genesis if they didn't even have seconds.
Disagree. In ancient times, seconds were not required or applicable. As I said previously, there were definitive other means of determining sunsets and harvest times without 'seconds' being considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 07-01-2007 9:36 AM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 07-02-2007 10:10 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 195 of 302 (408336)
07-01-2007 11:12 PM


Lets cut to the chase scene, before classifying all who see creationism without any alternatives as less than logical and unscientifically inclined. Two critical and fulcrum questions:
Q: What do you find more credible and vindicated - transmissions of life repro and dna data via cross-specie, or via within-specie?
Q: What is more scientifically vindicated: complexity from random, or complexity from a greater complexity?
# Any unsubstantiated, unproven theories cannot be applied where actual vindication is not manifest. Go for it - Talibanic, dogmatic paranoia welcomed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by NosyNed, posted 07-02-2007 1:04 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 200 by rakaz, posted 07-02-2007 4:06 AM IamJoseph has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024