Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 1:54 PM
33 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,070 Year: 5,107/19,786 Month: 1,229/873 Week: 125/460 Day: 67/58 Hour: 12/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14813
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 46 of 302 (353803)
10-03-2006 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dilyias
10-02-2006 6:15 PM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
quote:

I doubt this. A naive viewer would witness the the sun rising and the day beginning. As the sun gets higher in the sky things become brighter. As the sun lowers and sets into the void it gets dark again and the day is over.

Yet if clouds block the sun from view, the sky that is not obscured is still bright. Obviously the sun is a light source, but the day sky is, too. Unless you know about optics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dilyias, posted 10-02-2006 6:15 PM Dilyias has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dilyias, posted 10-03-2006 1:29 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Dilyias
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 302 (353915)
10-03-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
10-03-2006 2:57 AM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
quote:
Yet if clouds block the sun from view, the sky that is not obscured is still bright. Obviously the sun is a light source, but the day sky is, too. Unless you know about optics.

I suppose the entire sky could be viewed as a huge light source - by a completely naive viewer. I guess I was thinking of people in general who had contemplated this stuff for a little while.

When the sun is obscured (via clouds, rain, etc..) , a better way to express it is the light gets dimmer, it is not "still bright".

People also realized that obstructing a bright thing (fire, sun) cast lack of light where it "blocked" the light. The sun itself cast a shadow, the sky did not. Hence the sundial.

People could also see that "blocking" one's view of a lightsource did not stop all light from hitting them. I'm sure they understood reflections (mirrors) from a basic sense.

But I can't back any of this up. It's just my gut feeling. I could be wrong! Very wrong! :-)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2006 2:57 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by kuresu, posted 10-03-2006 3:40 PM Dilyias has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 621 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 48 of 302 (353942)
10-03-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dilyias
10-03-2006 1:29 PM


Re: Illogic in genesis.
well, the problem has to deal with the fact that they thought their eyes emited the rays by which they could see. I do know that this has been mentioned in this thread, and it seems that this belief was held onto for quite some time.


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 47 by Dilyias, posted 10-03-2006 1:29 PM Dilyias has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 49 of 302 (353953)
10-03-2006 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by iceage
09-24-2006 4:03 PM


Re: Religion and Truth.
Kekule was supposed to have come up with a structure for the benzene ring based on a dream of a snake biting its tail like the mythical Ouroboros, that could arguably be described as a religious vision if one were sufficiently argumentative at least.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by iceage, posted 09-24-2006 4:03 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
oblivionlord
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 302 (355887)
10-11-2006 12:31 PM


The Big Bang is just 1 of many theories and since we are including the presence of a supreme cosmic being then how hard would it be to believe that this being created planets before suns or life before birth.. etc etc etc? The "Laws of Physics" just don't apply in that manner. This is a being that created energy from nothingness since this being was all that existed prior to the creation of the Universe according to Genesis. We can talk science all day and night about what is and what isn't according to constants yet when you include a being like this with such attributes then how can you then rationalize any argument on this subject by including science?

If you really want to get scientific then prove the existance of God without including subjective beliefs. See how far modern day science will be able to achieve that. If there really is a being of such awesome abilities then how are we 'EVER' going to scientifically become aware of his/her/its existance?

Will the Unified Field Theory scientifically get us any closer to knowing the existance of this being and how this being set forth the creation of all existance providing this being even exists at all? I highly doubt it.


Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ReverendDG, posted 10-11-2006 12:43 PM oblivionlord has responded

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2218 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 51 of 302 (355893)
10-11-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by oblivionlord
10-11-2006 12:31 PM


The Big Bang is just 1 of many theories and since we are including the presence of a supreme cosmic being then how hard would it be to believe that this being created planets before suns or life before birth.. etc etc etc? The "Laws of Physics" just don't apply in that manner. This is a being that created energy from nothingness since this being was all that existed prior to the creation of the Universe according to Genesis. We can talk science all day and night about what is and what isn't according to constants yet when you include a being like this with such attributes then how can you then rationalize any argument on this subject by including science?

because if we are going to include a supreme cosmic being in the equation, we would hope what he does would make some sense and agree with the evidence we get now

If you really want to get scientific then prove the existance of God without including subjective beliefs. See how far modern day science will be able to achieve that. If there really is a being of such awesome abilities then how are we 'EVER' going to scientifically become aware of his/her/its existance?

its scientificly impossible to prove anything spiritual, theres no evidence of anything

Will the Unified Field Theory scientifically get us any closer to knowing the existance of this being and how this being set forth the creation of all existance providing this being even exists at all? I highly doubt it.

sorry what? what does that have to do with anything?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by oblivionlord, posted 10-11-2006 12:31 PM oblivionlord has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by oblivionlord, posted 10-11-2006 1:18 PM ReverendDG has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 302 (355896)
10-11-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Nimrod
10-03-2006 2:29 AM


Re: LOL talk about being out of touch.
I have no idea what quotes can be mined showing that ancient people "were ignorant of sources of light" , but my suggestion is to simply reach out and touch basic reality.

The simple fact that they saw the moon as a source of light is sufficient to prove that they were ignorant of the source of light.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Nimrod, posted 10-03-2006 2:29 AM Nimrod has not yet responded

oblivionlord
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 302 (355905)
10-11-2006 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ReverendDG
10-11-2006 12:43 PM


"because if we are going to include a supreme cosmic being in the equation, we would hope what he does would make some sense and agree with the evidence we get now"

Exactly why would a supreme being need to answer for his actions? Who are you to anyone? You may say that we are his children. Nice but, do you also take that same leap of authority to the lesser creatures that also occupy this planet when saying that we are the most superior species? Wouldn't you agree that it is a matter of perspective of how a human would look at another species and judge them to be of lesser quality then themselves? How a human would find themself more superior to a pig as a pig would be to a rat?

Just a simple question... in your opinion, what do you think an ants perception of God is or do you think an Ant is incapable of such thoughts since they have such low cerebral functions?

"its scientificly impossible to prove anything spiritual, theres no evidence of anything"

Thanks for clarifying my point in my first post

"sorry what? what does that have to do with anything?"

The Unified Filed theory.. lets look at this shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unified_field_theory

"Unified Field Theory is an attempt to unify all the fundamental forces and the interactions between elementary particles into a single theoretical framework. The long-sought theory which would explain the nature and behavior of all matter."

In other words.. if we were able to solve this theory then we would know the 'True Nature and Behavior' of all matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ReverendDG, posted 10-11-2006 12:43 PM ReverendDG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 10-11-2006 1:53 PM oblivionlord has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16356
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 54 of 302 (355912)
10-11-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by oblivionlord
10-11-2006 1:18 PM


oblivionlord writes:

in your opinion, what do you think an ants perception of God is or do you think an Ant is incapable of such thoughts since they have such low cerebral functions?

An ant's perception of God is probably about as accurate as a Christian's perception of God.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by oblivionlord, posted 10-11-2006 1:18 PM oblivionlord has not yet responded

Mespo
Member (Idle past 992 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 55 of 302 (355938)
10-11-2006 4:07 PM


Please explain Morning and Evening
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. [Genesis 1:5 KJV]

Please explain the concept of "morning" and "evening" after the light and darkness had been separated. What is the point of reference? My right cheek is in light and my left cheek is in darkness, so my nose is "morning". (It's running, actually)

There's nothing to stand on yet to face the light or darkness, so how does one get a half-light? How does a literalist explain that? The second sentence of the 5th verse contradicts the first sentence.

(:raig


Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by doctrbill, posted 10-13-2006 12:50 PM Mespo has not yet responded

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 3249 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 56 of 302 (356141)
10-12-2006 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


As many here have pointed out, there are all kinds of problems with saying that Genesis describes events in the correct order.

Without even looking very hard, a bunch of problems come to mind:

The Bible says the earth (Gen 1:1) was created before the stars (1:16). Day and night (1:3) were created before the sun (1:14). Plants (1:11) were made before the sun (1:14).

Furthermore, birds and whales (1:21) were created before reptiles and insects (1:24). Not to mention that everything in this creation was originally herbivorous (1:30).

Then you go over to Genesis 2:18-19 and find that man was created BEFORE the other animals. Gen 1:27 says man and women were created simultaneously, but Gen 2:18-22 says Man was first, then Animals, then Woman (from a man's rib, no less. Since when does an omnipotent being need genetic material to clone something it made from dirt in the first place?).

That's not to mention a ton of other absurdities, like talking animals or the sky being a "firmament" - (an upside down bowl). Really, thinking that Genesis is anything other than very figurative language is insulting to the Bible and to believing Christians.

Have a fun day-


-Equinox

_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - www.naturalpagan.org)


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Equinox, posted 10-17-2006 12:14 PM Equinox has not yet responded
 Message 59 by xXGEARXx, posted 10-26-2006 7:29 PM Equinox has responded
 Message 64 by zaron, posted 11-26-2006 5:51 PM Equinox has not yet responded

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 872 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 57 of 302 (356309)
10-13-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Mespo
10-11-2006 4:07 PM


Re: Please explain Morning and Evening
Mespo writes:

Please explain the concept of "morning" and "evening" after the light and darkness had been separated.

Maybe doctrbill's Adult Sunday School can help.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Mespo, posted 10-11-2006 4:07 PM Mespo has not yet responded

Equinox
Member (Idle past 3249 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 58 of 302 (357047)
10-17-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Equinox
10-12-2006 2:05 PM


Oh, another problem just crossed my mind. The Genesis account has a watery earth with no land first, then land later. The opposite is true - the earth accreted from debris hot, and only after it cooled did water start to condense out, then rain. As it rained on a completely dry earth, small puddles grew to lakes, then to oceans, and at no time was water over the entire earth.

In talking with fundamentalists, I've found that the most common explanation for all the complete mixup of order in the Genesis account is that it was written by some stupid person, who couldn't understand what was really the case if God had said that. That explanation (the "Naive observer") insults our ancestors, since ancient people could very well understand concepts like long times and like one form changing into another. The Hindu scriptures are much older than the Bible, and they talk about very long lengths of time, for instance.

Perhaps even worse, the "naive observer" explanation for the confused account we read in Genesis also calls the whole Bible into question. If the Genesis account is so wrong because the human writer wasn't able to write the right thing, than what about the rest of the Bible? Do the fundamentalists also advocate throwing the gospel accounts out the window, since they too were written by naive observers, who could have gotten much of it wrong, as the writer of genesis did? What about Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament - is he just some guy guessing about stuff?

That's another reason why it seems to me that creationism belittles God and insults Christianity.

Thoughts? Take care-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Equinox, posted 10-12-2006 2:05 PM Equinox has not yet responded

xXGEARXx
Member (Idle past 3229 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 59 of 302 (359139)
10-26-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Equinox
10-12-2006 2:05 PM


ahh, the truth , yet again...
Why is it if YOU wrote a book that was found NOT to be in the correct order, it wouldn't be a big deal? The bible never claims to have been written in order from chapter one, two, three, etc.. hell, even revelations, the last book of the Bible has events taken place before the earth was created. I think you are attacking it a bit much based on the fact you are a naturalist. That's just fine and dandy with me. Even if I think what you believe is bullshit.

Even if one doesn't believe in God, to just throw out a supreme being all together and go with randomness is ok? Maybe they are both stupid to the cretionevolutionist???

By the way, word definitions are a poor choice to smash.

Word History: Cute is a good example of how a shortened form of a word can take on a life of its own, developing a sense that dissociates it from the longer word from which it was derived. Cute was originally a shortened form of acute in the sense “keenly perceptive or discerning, shrewd.” In this sense cute is first recorded in a dictionary published in 1731. Probably cute came to be used as a term of approbation for things demonstrating acuteness, and so it went on to develop its own sense of “pretty, fetching,” first recorded with reference to “gals” in 1838.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cute

Point is.. Words change. They shorten, lengthen, change meaning, etc. Did firmament mean "upside down bowl" to them when the Bible was written? I don't know-- do you know for sure?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Equinox, posted 10-12-2006 2:05 PM Equinox has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Equinox, posted 10-30-2006 12:31 PM xXGEARXx has not yet responded

Equinox
Member (Idle past 3249 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 60 of 302 (359856)
10-30-2006 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by xXGEARXx
10-26-2006 7:29 PM


Re: ahh, the truth , yet again...
quote:
Why is it if YOU wrote a book that was found NOT to be in the correct order, it wouldn't be a big deal?

Um, because I'm not claiming to be the divinely perfect master of the universe and all powerful creator of all things. I'm just some bloke who can think sometimes. I'm pretty pathetic compared to an all perfect God who is claimed to have given us his all perfect word. So my book could very well be wrong or too verbose with no point. My book could go on and on for over a half-million words and still be so unclear that people could fight over their different ideas of what it means for centuries. I'm only human after all.

quote:
The bible never claims to have been written in order from chapter one, two, three, etc..

No, but we aren't talking about anyting after chapter 1. Chapter 1 does explicitly state that this is the order. Plus, we've all heard Christians say it is in perfect order (hence this whole thread). Here's another example: kids http://mb-soft.com/public/genesis5.html http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/genesis.htm#gray

The Bible says:

quote:
In the beginning God .....the earth was......And God said, .......And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day......And God said, ........And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day......And God said, .....And it was so. .......And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.... (etc.)

Is this another case of a Christian ignoring or changing what is in the Bible?

quote:
Point is.. Words change. They shorten, lengthen, change meaning, etc. Did firmament mean "upside down bowl" to them when the Bible was written? I don't know-- do you know for sure?

Well, we do have other ancient jewish writings, and they use "firmament" to mean "upside down bowl". It's not like scholars have only the words of the Bible from the ancient world.

Perhaps more importantly, if you do think that the changeable nature of language renders the meaning of the Bible unknown, then doesn't that eliminate the use of the Bible as something that has meaning for today? If every word could mean something else, then why bother with the Bible? I don't know why, but so often I see Christians (both liberal and conservative Christians) taking verse after verse, and in each case deciding first what they want it to mean, then figgering out some way to make it mean that.

If one is going to ignore what the author meant, then why restrict that approach to the Bible? Why not take any document and make it mean what one wants? That could come in really handy when reading a will, for instance.

It seems that by demanding proof for the idea that "firmament" means "upside down bowl" (like it does in other ancient jewish writing as well as in present day hebrew), but not supplying proof that "firmament" means "a galaxay 200 light years across", you are shifting the burden of proof.

Just sayin'.

Take care-

Edited by Equinox, : typo

Edited by Equinox, : clarified pronoun reference by changing "it" to "my book".

Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.


-Equinox

_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - www.naturalpagan.org)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by xXGEARXx, posted 10-26-2006 7:29 PM xXGEARXx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2006 9:56 PM Equinox has not yet responded

Prev123
4
56
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019