Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
101 online now:
nwr, Phat, xongsmith (3 members, 98 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,086 Year: 6,198/6,534 Month: 391/650 Week: 161/278 Day: 1/28 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Three Kinds of Creationists
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 53 of 432 (657334)
03-27-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by bridgebuilder
03-27-2012 2:45 PM


Re: To PaulK
Hi bridgebuilder and welcome to EvC,

Please explain why science does not believe in a Primordial Ocean when life first began on planet Earth?

I don't think you're making a valid comparison here. The primordial ocean of Genesis is not merely the beginning of the Earth, it's the beginning of everything. As PaulK notes, Genesis does not contain the concept of a planet. The authors seem to have imagined their world to be pretty much all there is. They did not have enough information to realise their place within a wider universe. As far a Genesis is concerned, the primordial ocean and the spirit of God moving over the waters is all that there is at the very beginning.

It is also worth noting that in Genesis, the land comes after the waters. In reality, the Earth had no oceans during its earliest history, they only formed later on. So the Bible has water then land, the evidence says land, then water. It's not as good a match as you're making it out to be.

A more valid comparison would be to compare the early universe to the beginning of Genesis. The early universe in Genesis is a primordial ocean. The evidence however tells us that, in reality, water could not even have existed in the early universe. Again, it's not a good match.

If you want to build bridges, you need them to have good foundations. I think that any reasonable foundation has to accept that whatever truths the Book of Genesis might contain, none of them are found in its take on cosmology or biology.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 2:45 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:25 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 104 of 432 (657505)
03-29-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:25 PM


I am aware that the Book of Genesis does not break down the mechanics of the beginning of creation of the universe/earth as science attempts to do.

I would agrue that it does attempt this, it just doesn't get it right.

I am fairly certain when God said "let there be light," that the process was much more complex than light magically appearing.

Really? Because that is exactly what is described in Genesis; God magically creates light, magically, using his magic God-powers. God simply speaks his desire and - lo! - it happens. I can't think of a more honest word for that than "magic".

But maybe not. Perhaps the resonance of his voice combined with the tone of the symbols of whatever language God uses, made the right vibrations to tie the knots of the super string (if the quantum theorists are on the right track), then energy was released, matter left its chaotic state and formed into atoms, and a mass expansion formed the fabric of space, dimensions formed within them and beyond, along with laws physics to govern them, and VoilĂ ! Light. I don't know.

I think that it's pointless making up post hoc rationalisations that attempt to "fix" Genesis in order to make it compatible with modern science. What you describe above sounds like exactly that.

One thing is certain, the authors of Genesis never intended to write a word about string theory or quantum mechanics. They wrote according to the knowledge of their times. Sadly for them, they lived in deeply ignorant times.

A Rabbi would be a better candidate to pick apart Genesis and make a detailed commentary/exegesis that could possibly compare it to scientific theories.

A Rabbi does not strike me as an unbiased party. Neither would they be likely to know much about science. Too often this sort of comparison is let down by bad theology from the scientists and bad science by the theists. Frankly, I don't see the point. Genesis is wrong about almost everything. Almost none of it is true. There's really nothing worth comparing.

I do know that reading Genesis in English makes it over simplified while the interpretation in Hebrew adds much more complexity

If you think you have an example of how this somehow rescues Genesis from its many errors, then please do share. Otherwise, it's not really an argument.

Nevertheless, they have an eternal outlook on the nature of God. Science is also perplexed about what happened before the big bang.

I am perplexed by the use of the word "also" in that second sentence. I don't see any kind of logic connecting sentence one to sentence two.

The problem I have with young-earth believers is that they claim to believe in an eternal God, but simultaneously claim he didn't create anything until 5000-6000 years ago.

I agree that this is a problem for creationists.

However, as I said in an earlier post to someone else, if one is an atheist, all this is irrelevant

I don't know abnout that. Personally, I am an atheist, but I have always been fascinated by mythology. I think that it is valuable to gain an insight into ancient cultures. I just don't think that religion in general and the Book of Genesis in particular have anything to offer modern science.

I would just like to comment on one thing that you said in reply to Subbie;

I have learned a tremendous amount in my brief time here. I can only hope that I am sufficiently unique enough to create a forth category of creationists, lol.

I'm glad that you're finding these discussions valuable and I appreciate your open and honest approach, but you should probably know that, in my experience, almost all creationists seem to consider themselves in some category apart from the rest. Most creationists will have their own pet theory. Many try to take a sort of "third way" between science and the Bible. This is nothing new.

These attempts always fail. Why? Because creationism is inherantly flawed. It is a false teaching. No amount of modification can save it.

Sometimes an idea is just plain bad and nothing you can do can put it right.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:25 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 388 of 432 (658725)
04-09-2012 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by bridgebuilder
04-07-2012 2:38 PM


Re: A possible point for prayer
If God makes certain laws, and we accept the premise that God is perfect, then he would not hypocritically disobey the laws he designed.

Well obviously; if we accept a prioiri that God is perfect. If we take that as our starting point, then of course God can't be hypocritical, he's perfect after all. Surely you can see the circular logic here?

We have no reason to make any assumptions about God. In particular, it is unhelpful to make an assumption that God is perfect when the evidence in the Bible suggests otherwise.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by bridgebuilder, posted 04-07-2012 2:38 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by bridgebuilder, posted 04-09-2012 9:24 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022