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:   Scientific Method Applied To Creation
NoBody
Guest


Message 1 of 20 (70672)
12-02-2003 11:14 PM


Scientific Method Applied To Creation
Hello, I am going to attempt to use the Scientific method to show that the Biblical Creation account is not a literal one. This method is understood best if you read this page below.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
Observation: When reading the Biblical accounts concerning Creation, it seems that the two accounts contradict eachother when inferred about the order of creation. Read Genesis 1-2:3 and 2:6-25. Compare their orders, you will see a contradiction.
Webpage to read the accounts:
1.)Chapter 1 Genesis 1 (KJV) - In the beginning God created
2.)Chapter 2 Genesis 2 (KJV) - Thus the heavens and the
Order in the first account, Genesis chapter 1.
0.)Heaven and Earth created
1.)Light created, light divided from darkness
2.)Firmament inserted between waters, dividing waters below and above the firmament and God called the firmament heaven.
3.)Water under the firmament was gatherd, and dry land appered. Dry land called "Earth", the gathering of waters God called "Seas". God also brought forth grass, plants and trees so that they would yield seed after their kind.
4.)God created lights in the firmament of the heaven so that they would be used for signs and seasons, days and for years. They are also used for lights for the earth. Those lights where: Two great lights , the sun and the moon then the stars where created also.(universe created)
5.)Fish created, also to bring forth "kind" after its kind.
6.)God created animals on the earth to bring forth kind after its kind also. God also created Man to bring forth kind after its kind.
7.)God rested.
Order in the second account, Genesis chapter 2
1.)Man created(assuming that the earth was their already).
2.)Man inserted into garden, trees created with a river flowing out (so it seems that land and water have been their before Man).
3.)Animals created, names given by Adam.
4.)Female created, named Woman because formed from Man.
So the first chapter clearly gives a better description as to specifications BUT we do see a different pattern or order as to how species where created. Also note that the second chapter seems to assume that the world existed without trees or plants or grass then moves into species creation(trees, plants and grass are species in science).
First account presents that grass,plants and trees, then fish, then animals, then Man. The second account presents that Man, then plants, grass and trees created, then animals, then no mention of fish however but then creation of Female, so you see the order is alot different. Man and Female where clearly created at different times in the 2nd but in the first they where created same time, then the order is different as too animals and such. Much different, and so it is observed that the two accounts in the bibil contradict eachother.
Hypothesis: The Biblical account concerning Creation is not a literal one.
Deduce predictions from the hypothesis: A prediction or thought of this observation is that the literal interpretation of the Creation account (refered to as Genesis 1-2) in the Bible is incorrect.
Search for confirmations of the predictions: By this thread I hope to confrim the prediction that the information contained in Genesis 1-2 are not literal information.
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-03-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2003 1:54 AM You replied
 Message 12 by NoBody, posted 12-03-2003 9:43 PM You have not replied

     
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 20 (70689)
12-03-2003 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NoBody
12-02-2003 11:14 PM


Re: Scientific Method Applied To Creation
This has already been gone over in at least one thread.
You can use the "search" function under Forums Nav. Enter some words like Genesis and some bits of it and you will probably find the thread.
Sorry, I'm being lazy but don't feel like trying to find it. I'm not all that interested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NoBody, posted 12-02-2003 11:14 PM NoBody has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NoBody, posted 12-03-2003 1:58 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 4 by NoBody, posted 12-03-2003 3:24 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NoBody
Guest


Message 3 of 20 (70691)
12-03-2003 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
12-03-2003 1:54 AM


Re: Scientific Method Applied To Creation
NosyNed writes:
This has already been gone over in at least one thread.
You can use the "search" function under Forums Nav. Enter some words like Genesis and some bits of it and you will probably find the thread.
Sorry, I'm being lazy but don't feel like trying to find it. I'm not all that interested.
I assume that is why know one is responding.
------------------
-------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2003 1:54 AM NosyNed has not replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 4 of 20 (70700)
12-03-2003 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
12-03-2003 1:54 AM


Re: Scientific Method Applied To Creation
You have anyidea what the conclusion of that thread was because I cannot find the thread.
------------------
-------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2003 1:54 AM NosyNed has not replied

     
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 20 (70704)
12-03-2003 3:38 AM


My guess is this is the (recent) topic Ned is thinking of:
Genesis 1: Schematic?
A couple of other possibilities:
Contradictions: Hint that Genesis 1 and 2 are Allegorical
Genesis 1 interpretation
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: I'll also give a plug, for minnemooseus's "Glenn Morton's attempt at reconcilling the Genesis story and the worldly story" topic.
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-03-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NoBody, posted 12-03-2003 3:43 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 7 by NoBody, posted 12-03-2003 5:53 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
NoBody
Guest


Message 6 of 20 (70705)
12-03-2003 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Adminnemooseus
12-03-2003 3:38 AM


Thank You
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-03-2003 3:38 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 7 of 20 (70717)
12-03-2003 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Adminnemooseus
12-03-2003 3:38 AM


Ok,
New observation, and this observation is not based from any one source, but many.
First You will notice this in G1.
Day0:Creation of Universe "heaven and earth"
Day1:Creation of light, divided light from darkness, split up days and nights too; light as day and dark as night. Its almost as if time existed because it concludes with (And the evening and the morning were the first day.) but there is no definition of time at this point.
Day2:Firmament inserted between the waters so now we have a division of waters which it explains as waters above the firmament and waters below the firmament, so we must conclude that waters now exist above and below but nothing in the middle except a expanse/firmament/space/air,etc. and of course it ends with the same timeframe with no defintion as of yet.
Day3:Gathering of water set forth, and this gathering of water was called "seas" which revealed land which god called the land "earth". Then we notice that God didn't exactly create grass and plants/herbs and trees but he commanded the earth to bring forth grass and plants/herbs and trees and the earth did so. (Evolution perhaps?)
Day4:Creation of 2 great lights (sun,moon) and creation of starts also. (Creation of our galaxy perhaps?) (Also understand that this was when time was created as shown in G1:14,15.
Day5:Creation of fish
Day6:Creation of the animals,bugs and man.
Day7: God rests.
You will notice that the creation account begins in G1 but ends in G2:3. G2:6-25 is speaking only of the garden of Eden, no where in this chapter does it explain something was created, it uses the words "plants" for the grass, herb, and trees and it uses the word formation for the animals and for man and female. So This is in no way a contridiction of the creation account, but a formation of a garden called Eden, which will now inhabit the earth. You need to also understand that Adem was placed in the garden of Eden so everything we see in G2 was done in the garden since that was the main plot of G2, it was not done else where which means perhaps since the creation was already completed back in G1 that animals and life did exist. Perhaps what really happends is this, God created all and inhabits the earth and then back in G1:27 is actually where G2:6-25 took place at which point God really rested after G2:25 WRT time, A literal example would be G2:6-25 took place in DAY6.
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-03-2003 3:38 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 12-03-2003 2:02 PM You replied

     
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 8 of 20 (70794)
12-03-2003 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoBody
12-03-2003 5:53 AM


Hello NoBody,
You have brought up many key elements which fire the controversy surrounding interpretation of the creation narratives. Perhaps my observations on the subject will be helpful. I would be most interested in hearing about your impressions of this material.
db
------------------
Sun Day School

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoBody, posted 12-03-2003 5:53 AM NoBody has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NoBody, posted 12-03-2003 3:51 PM doctrbill has not replied
 Message 13 by NoBody, posted 12-04-2003 6:44 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
NoBody
Guest


Message 9 of 20 (70830)
12-03-2003 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by doctrbill
12-03-2003 2:02 PM


Ok,
(added by edit)
Just to start, I want to validate the first idea.
It seems that you are saying in this article that the universe was composed of nothing but water before creation of our planet which we call earth. Then that our planet earth was formed from this water into the sphere that we see today. (According to the bible and your interpretation) You also validate this idea with a excerpt from 2 peter, (2 Peter 3:5 Jerusalem Bible).
quote:
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Of course you have a different translation to help understanding but eather translation point to the infer that the planet earth was formed from the water and still stands in the water and between the water.
I think this is a good idea except I believe that this excerpt from 2Peter is not refering to the planet Earth but rather the land earth. Another problem I see is that the heavens and planet Earth where already created before God decided to inhabit them G1:1, and then G1:2 explains that when God entered the inhabitents of the earth it was formless(i.e. without land), void(i.e. lifeless) and darkness was upon the face of the deep(i.e. no light and the planet was filled with water). Which dipicts the idea that when God entered the Earths atmosphere he found that it was formless(i.e. without land), void,(i.e. lifeless) and darkness was upon the face of the deep waters. Explaining that the entire inhabitents of the Earth was without land, lifeless, but filled with water and their was no light, and that his spirit moved upon the face of the waters. You need to pay attention to the grammer when reading these verses, there is a period at the end of the first verse which shows that it ends their and also the 2nd verse is a new verse, also pay attention to the grammer in the second verse for it helps better understanding.
Genesis 1:1-2
quote:
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. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Moving on to G1:3 we see that light is created. I think that this is literal, it is obviouse from my interpretation that God dwelling on the earth has not brought light, so God created light, then he divded the light from the darkness, then he called the light day and the dark night, which is in a way a division and also a barrier on time.
You on the other hand on your websight refer to the light being God and his presence. This conclusion cannot be found untill later in the bible so we cannot think that this is in the remote the same idea. I think that the light refering to God is a metaphore presented later in the bible, because God finds that light is good, it does not however mean that physically God is indeed light. (Light being a metaphore of something good, being something that in a darkplace, lights the room so you may see better or so you can see the err, Completly a metaphore, so we cannot apply this to God physically or scientificly being a light, the verse is simply saying that God created light regardless of how ignorant this makes him seem, also remember that Moses wrote the chapter so perhaps some of this is his own interpretation and really the person who was ignorant was Moses, note: that their is really no "reason given for light" except that he finds light good and that it is to be used for the timeframe of the day.)
G1:3-5
quote:
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Pay attnetion to grammitcal structure also in this verse, Light was created instantly, he appreciated light and found that it was good so he divided the light from the darkness. Then he created a barrier for time, and that was the first day.
What do you think?
(I will edit this post later, with more but I gotta run for a bit)
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 12-03-2003 2:02 PM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by doctrbill, posted 12-03-2003 6:13 PM You replied

     
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 10 of 20 (70867)
12-03-2003 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NoBody
12-03-2003 3:51 PM


NoBody writes:
What do you think?
I think you are difficult to read; but I think I understand most of what you are saying.
First of all, the passage you quoted back to me is the King James Version, not the Jerusalem Bible, as you seem to suggest.
You are correct in assuming that Peter is not talking about planet earth. Peter did not believe earth to be a planet. Aristotle himself did not believe earth to be a planet, although he did accept the idea that it is spherical in shape.
In fact, translators of the King James Version did not believe that earth is a planet. That idea, my friend, is the Copernican Heresy! The Bible never states, nor does it in any way suggest, that earth is a planet. When Genesis was written, they didn't even believe that earth is shaped like a ball. They had a word for ball, but they never used it in connection with earth. The planets were those seven stars which wander around among the others; and goodness knows, the Earth is not a star! So let's not mess up our exploration by assuming that the writers of Genesis imagined such a ridiculous thing.
I expect you may find the first chapter of Genesis much easier to understand if you envision the first two verses as a prologue. The Anchor Bible, and the Living Bible begin with, "When God began creating ..."
I am trying to imagine what you envision here:
Which dipicts the idea that when God entered the Earths atmosphere he found that it was formless(i.e. without land), void,(i.e. lifeless) and darkness was upon the face of the deep waters. Explaining that the entire inhabitents of the Earth was without land, lifeless, but filled with water and their was no light, and that his spirit moved upon the face of the waters.
Could you possibly rephrase this?
You need to pay attention to the grammer when reading these verses, there is a period at the end of the first verse which shows that it ends their and also the 2nd verse is a new verse, also pay attention to the grammer in the second verse for it helps better understanding.
Of course, in the Hebrew there was no punctuation, no vowel signs and no break between words or sentences. As for grammar, Hebrew is considerably different from English, and English versions vary in their presentation. The two versions I mention above (Anchor Bible and Living Bible) appear to offer a superior translation of the text.
db
------------------
Sun Day School

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NoBody, posted 12-03-2003 3:51 PM NoBody has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NoBody, posted 12-03-2003 6:58 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
NoBody
Guest


Message 11 of 20 (70878)
12-03-2003 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by doctrbill
12-03-2003 6:13 PM


First of all, the passage you quoted back to me is the King James Version, not the Jerusalem Bible, as you seem to suggest.
Correct.
You are correct in assuming that Peter is not talking about planet earth. Peter did not believe earth to be a planet. Aristotle himself did not believe earth to be a planet, although he did accept the idea that it is spherical in shape.
Ok.
In fact, translators of the King James Version did not believe that earth is a planet. That idea, my friend, is the Copernican Heresy! The Bible never states, nor does it in any way suggest, that earth is a planet. When Genesis was written, they didn't even believe that earth is shaped like a ball. They had a word for ball, but they never used it in connection with earth. The planets were those seven stars which wander around among the others; and goodness knows, the Earth is not a star! So let's not mess up our exploration by assuming that the writers of Genesis imagined such a ridiculous thing.
Ok. But we cannot really come to a conclusion without asserting.
I expect you may find the first chapter of Genesis much easier to understand if you envision the first two verses as a prologue. The Anchor Bible, and the Living Bible begin with, "When God began creating ..."
I understand now. If you read verse 1,2 as if they're in the same context which they are because verse 2 starts with "And".
and also
Regarding this excerpt from my previouse post:
quote:
Which dipicts the idea that when God entered the Earths atmosphere he found that it was formless(i.e. without land), void,(i.e. lifeless) and darkness was upon the face of the deep waters. Explaining that the entire inhabitents of the Earth was without land, lifeless, but filled with water and their was no light, and that his spirit moved upon the face of the waters.
I was trying to explain that perhaps God entered the atmosphere the same way that our rockets enter our atmosphere when they are coming back from the space station. But instead of seeing what we have today he found that the planet earth was without land, lifeless, and much water with no light, then it presents that the spirit of God is moving above the waters, which gives the idea that the spirit was checking the water for danger,etc. (This is wrong, I can see that if you read verse two, it is describing the earth in verse 1, the "and" comment in the begining of verse 2 kinda makes that apperent).
And regarding the punctuation, I just wanted to make sure we where at a common level. Good too see that we are.
(added by edit)
I just wanted to say that I finished reading your webpage, I think your webpage nailed it on the head.
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by doctrbill, posted 12-03-2003 6:13 PM doctrbill has not replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 12 of 20 (70895)
12-03-2003 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NoBody
12-02-2003 11:14 PM


Re: Scientific Method Applied To Creation
Observation: While reading this thread, the begining observation was that the creation account in the Bible, G1-G2 was contradictory but further study as shown in this thread reveals the true nature, shown in post 7,9 you can see how it is obviouse that their is no contradiction in G1-G2 account, but however through this thread it has been revealed in post 11 that it seems that the information contained in G1-G2 is based from a scientific theory in the ancient times. For further understanding read post 10,11.
Hypothesis: The Biblical account concerning Creation does not seem to be a literal one, it seems to be a idea based on a Scientific Hypothesis like this one you are reading, through time the information contained in G1,G2 has been shown to be incorrect and thus the Hypothesis is incorrect in the Bible(i.e. G1,G2)concerning creation it seems.
Deduce predictions from the hypothesis: No new information will be found that show that this hypothesis is incorrect.
Search for confirmations of the predictions: Time may tell.
(edit)
Read post 13
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NoBody, posted 12-02-2003 11:14 PM NoBody has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-04-2003 10:16 PM You replied

     
NoBody
Guest


Message 13 of 20 (71050)
12-04-2003 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by doctrbill
12-03-2003 2:02 PM


New observation
I have found some information which shows WRT ancient science that there where some people who knew the world was sphericle. You will find this information in the link:
The Round Earth and Christopher Columbus
Now if the ancients understand the world could be flat or sphericle it really does not matter because the Bible does not give the dimensions and their is no reason as to why the dimensions are not given. So it stands that the Bible does not give dimensions for the shape of the world so whatever conclusions after that rather based from christians or athiests does not matter and cannot explain that the God of the Bible is not the "God", because they are not directed from God of the Bible but rather a idea from mankind.
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 12-03-2003 2:02 PM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by doctrbill, posted 12-04-2003 9:19 PM You replied

     
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 14 of 20 (71068)
12-04-2003 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoBody
12-04-2003 6:44 PM


Re: New observation
Thanks for the link.
NoBody writes:
Now if the ancients understand the world could be flat or sphericle it really does not matter because the Bible does not give the dimensions and their is no reason as to why the dimensions are not given. So it stands that the Bible does not give dimensions for the shape of the world so whatever conclusions after that rather based from christians or athiests does not matter and cannot explain that the God of the Bible is not the "God", because they are not directed from God of the Bible but rather a idea from mankind.
The question of whether the Bible admits of a spherical earth is of no great importance. The greater concern, for many Christians, should be that it does indicate belief in a geocentric universe. This would be no concern at all except for those who expect the Bible to be written by God or at His dictation, or at least in such a way as to contain no error of any kind. If one believes that way, then the geocentric view of biblical authors is of great concern! In fact, it was this very question which the Churches so resisted in the sixteenth century; during the beginnings of what we call the scientific revolution.
Yes, the geocentric model was manmade but so is the concept of God, and so is the Bible itself. Not surprisingly, the evolution of science has laid many challenges at the door of those who assume the ancient texts to be free of error.
db
------------------
Sun Day School

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoBody, posted 12-04-2003 6:44 PM NoBody has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NoBody, posted 12-04-2003 9:37 PM doctrbill has not replied
 Message 16 by NoBody, posted 12-04-2003 9:37 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
NoBody
Guest


Message 15 of 20 (71070)
12-04-2003 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by doctrbill
12-04-2003 9:19 PM


doctrbill writes:
The greater concern, for many Christians, should be that it does indicate belief in a geocentric universe.
Where do you get the idea that the Earth in the Bible, is the center of the universe?
Yes, the geocentric model was manmade but so is the concept of God, and so is the Bible itself. Not surprisingly, the evolution of science has laid many challenges at the door of those who assume the ancient texts to be free of error.
This is an assertion. You have no evidence that there is no God, and also no evidence that the God of the bible is not the God. If you think their are problems with the Bible please lay out those problems one by one in a thread by thread basis, and make sure you keep the thread together, dont allow garbage to creap in.
And
Please don't make assertions. Stick to ideas which have a foundation. That is the point of this thread to discover if the biblical creation has a foundation or not, not anything else, so also stick to the thread.
But Who Am I?
NoBody
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by doctrbill, posted 12-04-2003 9:19 PM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by doctrbill, posted 12-04-2003 10:36 PM You replied

     
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024