Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 302 (350923)
09-21-2006 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
09-21-2006 3:29 AM


Re: keeping things on track
Just to add, it's a good idea to look at a bit more of the context:
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
If the stars are "for signs and seasons" then the stars must be "lights" in the sense used, and so must the Moon. It seems odd, then to suppose that the "greater light" is not the Sun. If the purpose is to light the Earth then it is hard to say how cutting the amount of light reaching the surface could be considered to be productive.
So, as far as I can see my reading of Genesis 1:3-5 describing the creation of "daylight" and Genesis 1:14-18 describing the creation of the sun, moon and stars is truer to the text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2006 3:29 AM PaulK has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 17 of 302 (350944)
09-21-2006 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by danny
09-21-2006 2:51 AM


Evidence
danny,
Per rule #4:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
and the fact that you are in a science forum means you do need to provide evidence and attribution. It is not appropriate to require that someone go look it up when they request you provide evidence.
Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
Thank you Purple

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by danny, posted 09-21-2006 2:51 AM danny has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 302 (350958)
09-21-2006 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by danny
09-21-2006 12:14 AM


quote:
Hairsplitting,pedantism and sidetracking seem tobe the orderof the day but I will try to deal with your "points" but first may I ask a favour of you.
Any attempt to reconcile Biblical passages with actual history before and after the passages were written involves hairsplitting. This is the game you already started. You must think that "pedantism" means pointing out the inconsistencies in your attempt. And I didn't sidetrack -- everything I wrote was directly relevant to your OP.
-
quote:
I would ask you to treat this passage as a set of data, and evaluate the interpretation I have put on it and present arguments for and against (in your case 'against' - it is strange to come across so many insecure scientists )
OK. Genesis was written by a Bronze Age people over 2500 years ago. It was written long, long before the relevant discoveries that led to our current understanding of the origin of the earth and the universe. Furthermore, in all probability the main purpose for writing Genesis was to provide a metaphorical explanation for the world in which the Hebrew people lived. Therefore, the first chapter in Genesis has very little to do the actual history of the real universe. So your interpretation is both unnecessary and forced. There is my evaluation of your interpretation.
-
quote:
"Two, actually. Genesis also claims that land plants were created beforesea creatures" - pedantism
Not by your terms. You pointed out an example where the order of creation was wrong compared to our current scientific understanding, and then tried to reconcile it. I pointed out that there is another example -- if one needs reconciliation, so does the other. If you are going to play this game, then you can't just choose which problems you are going to deal with.
-
quote:
"So you are saying the atmosphere was created after plants? That is still a problem" - the blue skiesof Daylight indicate not just any old atmosphere but a breathable one
By which time the plants, which were created the previous day, would be dead. That is a problem that you are trying to dodge here. What is more, our current understanding is that the atmosphere was formed before plants existed. So, by your own standards, there is a problem with your scenario.
-
quote:
"This is false. When the sun shineson the moon there is plenty of daylight." - there is a famous photograph of an astronaut stood on the moon. It is obvious from the shadows on the ground that the sun is directly oiverhead yet the backgound sky is jet black
So? What is the significance of this? To most people "daylight" means "daylight". It means light during the day caused by the sun by which people can see. If you look at those same photographs, you will notice that the austronauts are not using flashlights. That is because they were in daylight and could see. Maybe in ancient Hebrew "daylight" means "blue sky", but I doubt it; you are going to have to do a lot more than just claim this if you want to convince anyone of anything.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by danny, posted 09-21-2006 12:14 AM danny has not replied

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


Message 19 of 302 (350959)
09-21-2006 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


I think it's worth taking a little time to compare what Genesis really says with the supposed order given here.
Danny's order:
quote:
As it stands, the chronology of universal presented in Genesis is as follows:
Light - the Big Bang
Firmament - the expanse/expansion of the Universe
Earth
Seas
Vegetation
Sun, Moon and stars
Oceanic Life
Land based Animals
Mankind
Genesis 1:
Seas (Oceans is probably a better word 1:2)
Light - day and night (1:3-5)
Firmament - a solid boundary dividing the seas from the water in the sky (1:6-7)
Dry land ("seas" are created as a consequence of this - but the water was already there) (1:9-10)
Plants - including flowering plants (Cretaceous) (1:11-12)
Sun, Moon and stars (1:14-18)
Sea creatures and flying creatures (apparently including birds & mammals 1:20-22)
Land life (apparently including arthopods and cattle) (1:24-25)
Man (1:26-27)
Danny leaves out the preexisting waters and flying creatures, His interpretations of "light" and the firmament also appear to be at odds with the text.
The text dealing with the order in which living things appeared also cannot represent the actual order because, with the exception of man it lumps together ancient and modern forms in all three groupings. For every grouping it should be possible to find an example where the ordering is incorrect. There was plenty of sea life before flowering plants appeared. There was plenty of land life before birds or flowering plants or aquatic mammals appeared. But we cannot revise the order to escape this problem, because it is inherent to the "lumping together" - if we move land animals to before plants or before birds we have the problem that cattle clearly appeared later. There is no correct order for these groupings.
It is also clear that Genesis 1 represents an Ancient Near Eastern worldview that is not in agreement with modern science. It starts with water. It is geocentric with astronomical bodies viewed as lights in the sky - itself a solid dome that keeps the water out. It is concerned with the life known at the time, with no awareness of the long history of life. To see it as an accurate account of the modern scientific view requires ripping it out of the ancient cultural context where it so clearly belongs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 302 (350965)
09-21-2006 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


Mainstream science has given us a pretty comprehensive theory of universal evolution from the Big Bang to the appearence of modern man.
Already at the first sentence I had doubts. It seems as though you think modern man is the be all and end all of "universal evolution." Science has told us a lot about other things too. It's not as if everything worked in a nice upward line from Big Bang to us. We are only a branch... scratch that, a molecule in a leaf, on the big tree of the Universe.
And the rest of your post... well, I don't like it for the reasons others have given.
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 302 (350970)
09-21-2006 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


Mainstream science has given us a pretty comprehensive theory of universal evolution from the Big Bang to the appearence of modern man.
Already at the first sentence I had doubts. It seems as though you think modern man is the be all and end all of "universal evolution." Science has told us a lot about other things too. It's not as if everything worked in a nice upward line from Big Bang to us. We are only a branch... scratch that, a molecule in a leaf, on the big tree of the Universe.
And the rest of your post... well, I don't like it for the reasons others have given.
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 22 of 302 (350984)
09-21-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by danny
09-21-2006 3:06 AM


Re: keeping things on track
Maybe the passage is concerned with the creation of a breathable atmosphere.
What would the breathability of an atmosphere have to do with whether it scatters light or not? I'm guessing that a 100% nitrogen atmosphere would be just as blue as the one we have now - do you have any data to the contrary? And Mars has "daylight", to use your term. We can't breathe their atmosphere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by danny, posted 09-21-2006 3:06 AM danny has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 23 of 302 (351825)
09-24-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


Religion and Truth.
quote:
In general, the similarities between the biblical and scientific theories of universal evolution are uncanny. Are these similarities a product of my deranged imaginings and, if not, how did they come about.
No this is not uncanny.
What is uncanny however is that not one discovery of natural truth or monumental paradigm shift in human thought has ever come from a theologian or by metaphyical means such as a vision or prayer or visits from spirits.
No theologian, cleric, spirit medium, or priest has ever had a revelation while reading "holy" scripture or a vision that has lead to a new fundamental understanding such as:
  • The shape of the earth
  • Heliocentric solar system
  • Nature of gravity
  • Existence of galaxies
  • Immensity of the universe
  • Nature of matter and atomic particles
  • Evolution
  • Relativity
  • Structure of DNA
  • on and on....
Not one, not a single instance in religions (too) long reign. So why attempt to go looking for such "truth" now. Yes, you can go to sources that vainly attempt to show the bible or koranic accuracy in explaining the natural truth, but all are contrived and require a significant amount of suspension of common sense. If these natural truths existed in these holy works then why has not some inspired prophet pointed these out before. Either they are not there or no truly inspired adherts exist or both.
If "holy scripture" or religious visions have never yielded any scientific truths after centuries then why do some try to turn the "holy scripture" into a science text book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by danny, posted 09-25-2006 11:23 PM iceage has replied
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 10-03-2006 4:10 PM iceage has not replied
 Message 62 by zaron, posted 11-26-2006 2:28 PM iceage has not replied

danny
Inactive Junior Member


Message 24 of 302 (352271)
09-25-2006 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by iceage
09-24-2006 4:03 PM


Re: Religion and Truth and Dogma
There are SIMILARITIES between Genesis 1 and conventional wisdom on universal evolution. These SIMILARITIES are there and there are too many of them to constitute a lucky shot in the dark. The author(s) of Genesis 1 could have said virtually anything by way of explaining how everything came to be. I would ask you to read Genesis 1, something you have probably never done or would ever dream of doing, and see for yourself whether these SIMILARITIES exist or not. Your rabid dogma could do with some revision. As for your comment about no theologians or clerics etc. never contributing to scientific advancement, you may be shocked to learn that many of the "great minds" of science were devoutly religious men. Those who weren't usually made their big breakthroughs in a "Eureka" moment of instant revelation. A method of gaining insight that makes a mockery of the processes of logic and rational thought. Try to remove your dogmatic blinkers - neither science nor religion offer a total view of reality. They are both partial explanations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by iceage, posted 09-24-2006 4:03 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 09-25-2006 11:31 PM danny has not replied
 Message 26 by ReverendDG, posted 09-25-2006 11:40 PM danny has not replied
 Message 29 by Quetzal, posted 09-26-2006 12:31 AM danny has not replied
 Message 30 by iceage, posted 09-26-2006 12:49 AM danny has not replied
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2006 2:08 AM danny has not replied

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


Message 25 of 302 (352272)
09-25-2006 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by danny
09-25-2006 11:23 PM


Re: Religion and Truth and Dogma
There are SIMILARITIES between Genesis 1 and conventional wisdom on universal evolution.
Sorry, but that is a total pointless statement.
The errors in Genesis 1 are sufficient to show that it has no scientific basis at all.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by danny, posted 09-25-2006 11:23 PM danny has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 26 of 302 (352274)
09-25-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by danny
09-25-2006 11:23 PM


Re: Religion and Truth and Dogma
There are SIMILARITIES between Genesis 1 and conventional wisdom on universal evolution.
they both use words? i think thats about it?
ever contributing to scientific advancement, you may be shocked to learn that many of the "great minds" of science were devoutly religious men
so what? jar knows this, this doesn't mean that what people believe today is what they believed then
Try to remove your dogmatic blinkers - neither science nor religion offer a total view of reality.
you don't know anything about the person to make this statement or any of your other ad homs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by danny, posted 09-25-2006 11:23 PM danny has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 27 of 302 (352278)
09-26-2006 12:03 AM


Illogic in genesis.
At a minimum, if one wanted to display even the slightest amount of logic, I would think one would create the sun, moon and stars either before or at the same time as light.
Furthermore, knowing that plants rely on sunlight, one would have to assume, if one were trying to give an accurate description of how things came to be, that the sunlight was there before plants.
Given these obvious facts, I find it nearly impossible to believe that the people who wrote the bible thought they were accurately transcribing how things came to be. They were either irretrievably stupid, or they knew they were telling a story, not a history.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by kuresu, posted 09-26-2006 12:07 AM subbie has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 28 of 302 (352280)
09-26-2006 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by subbie
09-26-2006 12:03 AM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
there is a third option--they were just ignorant--wasn't until modern history (I'm thinking 1800s, but it could easily be earlier) that plants had a vascular system similar to ours? what about the necessity of light?
they definetly got the order wrong, but that would be because they were ignorant of modern science.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 09-26-2006 12:03 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by subbie, posted 09-26-2006 6:41 AM kuresu has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 29 of 302 (352282)
09-26-2006 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by danny
09-25-2006 11:23 PM


Re: Religion and Truth and Dogma
As for your comment about no theologians or clerics etc. never contributing to scientific advancement, you may be shocked to learn that many of the "great minds" of science were devoutly religious men.
Ahh, but you miss the point. Certainly there were quite a few very religious men who provided extraordinary insights into the natural world. Newton (who spent many more years writing terrible exegesis on the Book of Daniel than he ever spent on Principia), Grigor Mendel, the "father" of genetics (who was an Augustinian monk who discovered the principles of heredity while puttering about in the monestary gardens - more or less), etc. However, where you are completely missing the boat is that NONE (that's right, not one single solitary individual) EVER used metaphysics or theology as the methodology for their discoveries. From one point of view, it could be said that they made their contributions to the understanding of our world in spite of their religious beliefs, not because of them.
Those who weren't usually made their big breakthroughs in a "Eureka" moment of instant revelation. A method of gaining insight that makes a mockery of the processes of logic and rational thought.
Name one of the "greats" who made a discovery in this fashion. Galileo studied the stars for decades, Mendel experimented on 28,000 pea plants over the course of seven years. Outside the possibly apocryphal story of Newton's apple, I can't think of one scientist who has ever shifted a major paradigm through a "eureka" moment. The most momentous statement in science isn't "Eureka!", it's "Hmmm, that's odd..."
This will be my last post on this subject. The Topic Police are likely to catch us up. However, I challenge you to present this argument in a PNT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by danny, posted 09-25-2006 11:23 PM danny has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 30 of 302 (352283)
09-26-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by danny
09-25-2006 11:23 PM


Re: Religion and Truth and Dogma
Please keep my comments in context. You said:
As for your comment about no theologians or clerics etc. never contributing to scientific advancement, you may be shocked to learn that many of the "great minds" of science were devoutly religious men.
I said:
No theologian, cleric, spirit medium, or priest has ever had a revelation while reading "holy" scripture or a vision that has lead to a new fundamental understanding
Key point being that no significant discovery of the nature of the universe came from studying the Bible or Koran. If scientific truth was in these scriptures then it would have been possible to derive those truths from the scripture alone. The truth is not there.
I include the Koran not to offend you but because Muslims make identical claims (equally unconvincing) as Christians that their book contains many uncanny scientific facts - but always in retrospect.
A method of gaining insight that makes a mockery of the processes of logic and rational thought.
What! The Eureka moment comes after significant observation and thinking deeply about the problem not via prayer or holy vision. The processes of logic and rational thought precedes the Eureka moment.
quote:
Try to remove your dogmatic blinkers - neither science nor religion offer a total view of reality. They are both partial explanations.
Science and religion are not on equal footage. Huxely once stated that science is organized common sense. I will add that religion is organized superstition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by danny, posted 09-25-2006 11:23 PM danny has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024