Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 19/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 15 of 319 (489754)
11-29-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jaywill
11-29-2008 4:38 PM


jaywill writes:
quote:
But I want to know if you can find any ancient account of creation that says the gods or thier god created the world out of nothing.
Greek: In the beginning, there was Chaos, the gaping void of nothingness.
Norse: In the beginning, there was Ginnungagap, the void that separated Muspelheim and Niflheim.
Chinese: In the beginning, all was Tao, the nameless void, the mother of Ten Thousand Things.
So there you go. The Bible is hardly unique in claiming that in the beginning, there was nothing. Of course, if there were nothing, how could there be god? But, that's another question.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jaywill, posted 11-29-2008 4:38 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jaywill, posted 11-29-2008 11:38 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 50 of 319 (490480)
12-05-2008 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jaywill
11-29-2008 11:38 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
What are you quoting specifically?
Greek mythology. You mean you don't know? Now, I know this stuff inherently, being Greek, but I suppose that others who weren't held by the ankle and dipped in the river Styx might have to do some homework.
Why are you expecting me to do your homework for you? Are you incapable of typing "greek myth creation universe" into your favorite search engine and looking it up?
quote:
Whatever Muspelheim and Ginnungagap were, they existed and were seperate, So this example is not quite as good as the first.
You need to go beyond that. Do your homework. Ginnungagap was the void from which all came.
quote:
But there is something rather than nothing.
What part of "nothing" is not "nothing" but rather "something"? Considering that the Bible starts off with "waters," then your claim that the Bible starts with "nothing" is false.
It starts with something.
Greek mythology starts with absolutely nothing from which everything comes forth. You do know what the word "" means, yes? It is not mere "disorganization."
quote:
So where did it come from if not God ?
According to Greek mythology, gods come from chaos, not the other way around (well, other beings first and eventually gods, but the chaos, the nothingness, is first and everything arises from it.)

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jaywill, posted 11-29-2008 11:38 PM jaywill has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 51 of 319 (490481)
12-05-2008 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
11-30-2008 5:22 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
An existing Planet
Atmosphere Created
Dry Land Bought Forth
Sea Creatures Created
Flying Creatures Created
Vegetation created
Land Animals Created
Mammals Created
Mankind Created
But this isn't accurate. Plants came before the flying creatures. Plants came before the sea creatures.
In fact, the Bible directly contradicts the fossil record: It declares that fruit-bearing plants came before insects and it is the other way around. Fruit-bearing plants require pollinators, thus the insects need to come first and, indeed, that's exactly what the fossil record shows:
Insects first, fruit-bearing plants second, in direct contradiction to Genesis 1.
quote:
you wont find another creation account as believable as this one
But this one isn't believable. Why are you advocating it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 5:22 AM Peg has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 52 of 319 (490482)
12-05-2008 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peg
11-30-2008 10:22 PM


Peg writes:
quote:
in a thick atmosphere
Hold it just a parboiled second there.
And I mean that literally. If the atmosphere were as thick as you require it to be to prevent the sun from being visible, then we would be living on Venus with enough pressure and heat to melt lead and life could not exist at all, yet the Bible says that plants came into being before the sun.
quote:
the light from the sun could have reached the earth without the sun being visible.
Irrelevant. The statement of the Bible is not that the sun became visible on the third day. It's that it came into existence on the third day. Regardless of the thickness of the atmosphere, there was no sun of any kind until the third day.
Your claim is in direct contradiction to established fact. The sun came before plants.
quote:
Just like on an overcast day, there is still light coming through but no sun.
Incorrect. I can see the sun on an overcast day. It isn't as clearly defined as it is on a cloudless day, but it is identifiable.
quote:
this tells us that the initial light was coming from the sources of light
But there are no other sources of light of any significance outside of the sun. Moonlight is reflected sunlight and starlight is of no consequence.
Since the sun, moon, and stars didn't exist until the third day and thus could not be the sources, where did this "initial light" come from?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 10:22 PM Peg has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 53 of 319 (490483)
12-05-2008 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Peg
12-02-2008 3:05 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
i've read a lot of information to the contrary
Oh, really? What? Could you provide a reference? All of the information I have ever seen on the evolutionary history of life on this planet has been consistent.
quote:
this is what confuses me about evolutionary science....there are sooooo many different opinions
Where? I need specific references because the exact opposite is what I have found: Depsite the fact that literally thousands of independent scientists have looked into the problem with hopes of finding something new, they all came to the same conclusion.
quote:
The Book of Popular Science says: “From [earliest] times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated.”
That is true.
That also has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.
The passage you quoted is referring to how Mt. Everest came to be: It used to be underwater and then the Indian plate collided with the Eurasian plate and a process of uplift happened, resulting in the tallest mountain in the world arising out of the ocean.
But all of that assumes that the ocean exists in the first place and we're talking about where the ocean came from. It was not always here.
When the earth first formed, it was incapable of supporting liquid water upon its surface. Eventually, it cooled down sufficiently to allow liquid water to pool on the surface. Thus, dry land came first and then the oceans settled upon it.
quote:
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”14 So, if everything were leveled out”if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in”the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.
Again, absolutely true and absolutely irrelevant.
You are talking about the process of plate tectonics and we're talking about the formation of the oceans.
See, the problem is not that there are "different opinions" or "information to the contrary."
It's that you do not understand the information you have.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Peg, posted 12-02-2008 3:05 AM Peg has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 55 of 319 (491748)
12-20-2008 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Buzsaw
12-20-2008 3:23 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Genesis 1 uses the term, "evening and morning." Before day five when the sun and moon were completed, the evening and mornings were not determined by the sun and moon since they did not yet exist according to the Biblical record.
Incorrect. The reason the phrase "evening and morning" was used is because that is one of the ways in which Hebrew describes a literal, 24-hour day. The Bible was written in a human language and thus it uses human phrasing to define things.
When you tell a speaker of Hebrew, "evening and morning of the nth day," as you see in the Bible, you mean a literal, 24-hour day. Surely you're not saying that a person trying to describe how long something is wouldn't use terms that the listener would understand, are you?
Hebrew has ways of describing indefinite lengths of time as English does. If you wanted to describe a long time in English, you'd say "age," not "day." The reason Hebrew chose that particular phrasing is because it was describing a literal, 24-hour day.
quote:
Thus there is no recorded measurement of days one through four since we don't know how long it took to create the sun and the moon on day four.
Yes, we do. It took less than a day. The sun and moon were created after the third day but before the end of the fourth day and the days are literal, 24-hour days.
quote:
The record says the sun and moon determined the days years and seasons etc. Obviously the days before these existed were determined by the Spirit of God who was the member of the trinity there doing the work.
But it turns out that they were literal, 24-hour days because that is how they were described. If they weren't, why use language that indicates you mean a literal, 24-hour day? Why not use other terminology that indicates that it took longer than a literal, 24-hour day?
quote:
The Buzsaw Hypothesis reasons that a great amount of heat was applied to the planet on day one to evaporate/separate the waters below the firmament from the waters above the firmament (atmosphere)
This completely contradicts the geological record. The earth came first. The ocean came second. Genesis has it completely backwards. Therefore, your "hypothesis" is trying to describe something that didn't happen. While it may be internally consistent, it needs to be externally consistent.
Earth first, water second, Buzsaw.
quote:
So not all so called literal interpretations of Genesis claimed by creationists are YEC.
But you're not taking it literally, Buzsaw. You are taking it metaphorically. A literal translation would take the Bible at its word: It uses a phrase that means a literal, 24-hour day. But you are saying that despite the fact that it goes out of its way to pound home the fact that it was a literal, 24-hour day, it doesn't really mean it but instead is speaking metaphorically.
So which is it? Is it literal or is it metaphorical?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 12-20-2008 3:23 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 12-20-2008 5:33 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 57 of 319 (491770)
12-20-2008 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
12-20-2008 5:33 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
I would hope anyone reading Genesis one could figure out that if you have no mechanism in place to effect the 24 hour evening and morning until day five, the length of the first days would be undetermined.
I would hope anyone who speaks a language could figure out that words have meanings regardless of the existence of a sun. I would certainly hope that they could realize that if you are explaining something to someone else using language, then you use words that mean what you actually intend to convey.
After all, if you didn't mean "literal, 24-hour day," why would you use a phrase that means "literal, 24-hour day"? Wouldn't you use another term that means an indeterminate length of time? It isn't like "yowm" is the only word to refer to a period of time in Hebrew.
quote:
Read Joshua 10:14.
Why? We're talking about Genesis, not Joshua. The Joshua passage is not referring to the events described in Genesis 1 nor is the phrasing used in that passage similar to what was used in Genesis 1. Therefore, it cannot assist us in determining what Genesis 1 is saying.
Again, if Genesis 1 didn't mean a "literal, 24-hour day," why did it use a phrasing that means a "literal, 24-hour day"? I would certainly hope that anybody communicating in language would understand that words have meanings regardless of the existence of a sun and would thus use words and phrasings that mean what you actually intend to convey.
quote:
No we're not talking ages in Genesis.
If it isn't a literal, 24-hour day, then why would "age" be an inappropriate term? In English, an "age" refers to an indefinite period of time defined not by mere calendar concerns but rather by significant events.
quote:
It's evening/night and morning daylight.
No, it's a colorful phrase that is used to describe a literal, 24-hour day. It is based on the fact that when the text was written, a literal, 24-hour day was marked by a period of night followed by a period of day. But that's the thing about phrasing: It carries meaning.
That's why the scientists working on the Mars probes talk about "sols" rather than "days." A "day" means 24 hours. But Mars doesn't rotate once every 24 hours. It rotates once every 24 hours and 37 minutes. The workers on the team function on Mars time, not Earth time, so their schedules slip 40 minutes every day. It's important to do this because the rovers are dependent upon the action of the sun not only to power the solar cells but because the heat from the sun warms the rover and affects its functioning. You have to be at the lab when Mars tells you it's time to be there.
So if you were going to talk about time on Mars and wanted to make sure people understood what you were talking about, would you use the word "day"? Of course not. You'd use some other term to ensure that people understood you. Perhaps a phrase that used features of Mars such as a "crossing of Olympus Mons."
quote:
The length of each is unable to be determined as it would have been for the purpose of effecting the work of preparing the planet for life.
Incorrect. Words have meanings. It doesn't matter whether or not the sun exists. A person who speaks English knows what a "day" means. The people on the space shuttle orbit the earth every 90 minutes. They see sunrise and sunset 16 times in 24 hours. And yet, they still talk about "days." Now, do you think they say that when they are going on a "13-day mission," they mean they're going up for about 20 hours? Of course not. They mean a 24-hour day despite the fact that sunrise and sunset are happening at a rapid clip.
Words and phrases have meanings. Why would you use a word or phrase that doesn't mean what you intend to convey? I would certainly hope that anybody trying to communicate using language would not say things they didn't mean.
quote:
For example it would have taken a lot of heat to evaporate enough water into the atmosphere to create it and effect the forming of the land and sea, etc.
But that isn't what Genesis says. Genesis says the water came first. And you've just contradicted yourself (Message 54):
The Buzsaw Hypothesis reasons that a great amount of heat was applied to the planet on day one to evaporate/separate the waters below the firmament from the waters above the firmament (atmosphere)
So which is it? Did the water come first or did it come second? Genesis 1 says it came first. Geology says it came second.
quote:
But we don't know how long the day had gone until the work of day four was finished.
Yes, we do. It took less than a day. The sun and moon were created after the third day but before the end of the fourth day and the days are literal, 24-hour days.
Surely somebody who is trying to communicate using language wouldn't use a phrase that means a "literal, 24-hour day" without meaning that.
quote:
Not until day five when the sun and moon were finished can we be sure that there was a 24 hour day.
So why describe everything using "day"? Why use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour period of time when that isn't what you mean? It isn't like "evening and morning of the nth day" is the only way Hebrew can describe time.
quote:
Assuming I'm right, what terminology would you expect for something unusual?
How about the amount of time that it took? If it was more than a day, why use a phrase that means a literal day? Why not tell us how long or if that would ruin the poetry of the description, why not use a phrasing that gives some sign of the amount of time involved? There are plenty of ways to describe very long periods of time. Why use the phrase that means a short one?
quote:
That's what Genesis 1 says. The earth came first and the oceans were formed second.
Incorrect. It says the waters came first:
Genesis 1:2: 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.
Water first...there is no earth for it is without form and void.
But wait, there's more:
1:6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7: And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
According to Genesis 1, there was no dry land until it rose up out of the water. But geology says differently: There was dry land and the water settled upon it.
quote:
There were no seas and no continents until the watery mix of earth and water were separated after heat/light came.
But you're missing the point: "Sea" only makes sense in the light of having dry land. As the thought experiment goes: A "lake" is a body of water surrounded by land while an "island" is a body of land surrounded by water. Now suppose you have a planet where one hemisphere is all land while the other hemisphere is all water. Is the water a "lake" or is the land an "island"?
[Yes, yes, I know that most people would say that the land is a "continent" and the water is an "ocean." That misses the point.]
quote:
The record states clearly that seas were created after the formless void earth was created.
Incorrect. The record states clearly that the seas were created after the formless void. The earth didn't come along until the seas came along and even then, it emerged from the water.
Water first, land second, according to Genesis. Geology says it's the other way around: Land first, water second.
quote:
Earth first, water second, Rrhain. Check! Is this a first, or what?
But that isn't what Genesis 1 says:
Genesis 1:2: 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.
No earth, but there is water.
Genesis 1:9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Water first, land second.
Geology says differently: Earth first, water second.
Which is it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 12-20-2008 5:33 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 12-20-2008 11:13 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 67 of 319 (491899)
12-24-2008 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
12-20-2008 11:13 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
Earth = Planet Earth in Genesis one. That's the name of our planet; Earth.
Two problems. We're talking about dry land. Genesis says dry land came second. Geology says dry land came first.
Second, Genesis says even the earth came after the water:
Genesis 1:2: 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.
Genesis says water first and everything else after.
Geology says water came second, after the planet was formed.
Which is it?
quote:
Joshua's long day is relevant to this debate.
Incorrect. Joshua's long day doesn't tell us how to interpret the phrase "evening and morning of the Nth day" because the passage doesn't use that phrase. One cannot divorce individual words from the context in which they are uttered and expect to have a rational understanding of meaning.
quote:
It proves that a day need not be 24 hours in the Hebrew language.
Nobody ever said it couldn't. Like English use of the word "day," Hebrew use of the word "yowm" can mean various lengths of time. In order to determine what is meant, you have to look at the context in which it is spoken. Genesis 1 uses the phrase "evening and morning of the Nth day." The passage referring to Joshua doesn't. Therefore, it really doesn't matter what "yowm" means in the Joshua passage. The context is completely different.
quote:
The text calls that long day "day."
Irrelevant. We're talking about what Genesis says. "Evening and morning of the Nth day" is a specific phrasing that indicates a literal, 24-hour day. Other passages with other contexts and other phrasings will not change that fact.
quote:
You choose to ignore my argument that there was nothing in place before there was a sun and moon to determine the 24 hour day.
Incorrect. I do not ignore it. I simply point out that it is irrelevant. The passage is described using language. Therefore, we have to analyze it using the tools of language. It doesn't matter if there were a clock or not: The passage says that the events happened in the space of "the evening and the morning of the Nth day." That is a phrase that indicates a period of 24 hours. It doesn't matter that for the first three days, there was no sun. The passage is being described using a language that has a distinct meaning for a particular phrasing.
Again, the space shuttle orbits the earth every 90 minutes. The astronauts will see sunrise and sunset 16 times a "day." But wait...aren't I saying that a "day" is a period from sunrise to sunset? No. While the word "day" may be based upon that cycle, what it really means in this context is a 24-hour period.
I'm describing the events using language. Therefore, my statement has to be examined using the tools of langauge. If I'm talking about a "13-day mission" when referring to the shuttle, I'm clearly not referring to the physical phenomenon of sunrise or sunset. I'm using the word "day" in a specific context to refer to a specific period of time.
quote:
so long as we are at an impasse on that it's useless to continue knocking our heads together on that count.
Agreed, but the problem is not that I am ignoring your argument. It is that you are ignoring the very text you are claiming to interpret. Don't you find it interesting that in this discussion between us about what Genesis says, I am the one that has been quoting it?
Genesis 1:2: 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.
No earth. It is "without form and void." And yet, there is water.
Genesis 1:5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Oh, wait a second...we've just received a definition of "day" and "night" and the use of the word "day" to describe the period of time. Again, if the author had meant a period of time greater than a 24-hour period, why use the phrase, "evening and morning of the first day," since that implies a literal, 24-hour day? It isn't like the only way to describe time in Hebrew is with the word "yowm." It isn't like "evening and morning of the Nth day" is the only phrase available.
What you need to explain is why a passage that is trying to say that the action took more than 24 hours used a phrase that implies it only took 24 hours.
Genesis 1:6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
There's that reference to water again. And still no earth, let alone dry land.
Genesis 1:9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Finally! Earth! Dry land! But wait...this passage says that the earth and the dry land came out of the water. But geology says it ws the exact opposite: Earth and dry land first, water second.
So which is it? Was there dry land first or was there water first?
Feel free to ignore everything else I said in this post and answer just that one question:
Which came first: Dry land or water?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 12-20-2008 11:13 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2008 7:22 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 68 of 319 (491900)
12-24-2008 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Itinerant Lurker
12-21-2008 8:30 AM


Itinerant Lurker writes:
quote:
If we accept, for a moment, that the Genesis account is an inspired work meant to convey the actual creation event. Would anyone have bothered with it if it was written as a literally correct description that no one would be able to understand for a few thousand years?
That may be, but for the purposes of this discussion, don't you think that even if you are trying to give an understandable description of the process, you'd at least get the details you do mention correct?
Surely the order in which things happened would be correct even if the details of those things are grossly simplified, yes? To use your ATM example (and pet peeve: The "M" in "ATM" stands for "machine"..."ATM machine" is redundant), you wouldn't say that you get your money first and then put your card in the slot. Even with the most overly simplified description of what "money," "card," and "machine" are, the order in which things happened should be correct: You slide your "card" in the "machine" and then receive your "money."
Genesis gets the order of things wrong. It says the water came first and the earth came second. It's the other way around. It says the fruit bearing trees came first and the insects came second. It's the other way around.
And most importantly, the phrasings used should actually mean what is intended, even if simplified. If you're going to try to convey the idea that things took a long time, why use phrasings that instead imply that things happened very quickly?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 12-21-2008 8:30 AM Itinerant Lurker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 12-27-2008 10:13 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 69 of 319 (491901)
12-24-2008 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Buzsaw
12-21-2008 10:17 AM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
I'm being logical in hypothesizing that days without a complete solar system, having no sun would have been unusual.
But you're ignoring the text. "Day" gets defined before the end of the first day and is then immediately described:
Genesis 1:5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Thus, it doesn't matter that there wouldn't be a sun for three more days. "Day" has just been defined.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 12-21-2008 10:17 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2008 9:48 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 73 of 319 (491962)
12-24-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jaywill
12-24-2008 9:48 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Do you object to the beginning of the cosmos being discribed as a Big Bang?
Yes. The Big Bang describes the inflation and expansion of the universe, not the creation.
quote:
I mean where was the air for sound waves to travel and make a noise. If no sound then where is the Bang ?
Oh, where to begin with the silliness of that statement....
So when you hear things underwater, you're not really hearing them because there is no air? Is that what you're saying?
Sound is the fluctuation of a medium. At the time of the Big Bang, the universe was not empty. In fact, all matter was condensed into a tiny space. I dare say if you had audio equipment that could have survived, there would have been quite a lot of sound.
But on top of that, "bang" refers to more than just sound. Again, you must deal with context. When a word has multiple meanings, you cannot simply substitute one for another and expect to have a legitimate interpretation. To do so is the logical error of equivocation.
Instead, since we are dealing with a scenario described by language, you have to use the tools of language to interpret it. The reason "bang" is used is because it is a useful descriptor for what happened: A tremendous explosion in multiple senses. Not merely a throwing out of matter and energy into space but also a huge expansion of space, itself.
As Hawking put it, the Big Bang happened everywhere at once.
quote:
If we can allow a little poetic license to the language of a Bang happening before sound could exist we can allow the same license for a Day to exist before the sun appears, I think.
Indeed. That's my point. Because we haven't mastered that telepathy thing, we use language to communicate ideas. Therefore, we use words to convey the meanings we want to get across. Since there are plenty of ways to express a long period of time in Hebrew, why use a phrasing that specifically indicates a literal, 24-hour period of time? If you didn't mean it, why would you say it?
quote:
Strictly speaking, we cannot insist that the Hebrew says the sun was created on the fourth day. Rather that light bearers were made. That is a more specific receptacle to hold light:
Oh, please. Let us not play dumb. "The greater light to rule the day" is not ambiguous. It is a reference to the sun. "The lesser light to rule the night" is not vague. It is a reference to the moon. And since it follows those statements with a direct statement of "he made the stars, also," there is no question as to what was going on: The creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
quote:
I can imagine that the seer had a vision of a diffuse and undefined light and darkness before these fourth light-bearers were seen in the expanse of heaven.
Indeed...but since all the light we have on this planet comes from the sun and other stars (the moon having no light of its own), there's a small problem as to where this "diffuse and undefined light" came from during days one through three since the sun and stars wouldn't be created until day four.
quote:
On the third day the dry land was made to appear. It came up from under the waters where it was not dry and was hidden.
And that's in direct opposition to geology. The dry land came first. The waters came second.
Which is it?
quote:
Previous to that a general haze of brightness turning into darkness could have been what was shown him.
But since without the sun and stars there is no light, where did it come from? The sun and stars wouldn't be made until the fourth day. There was light on the first day. Where did it come from?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2008 9:48 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2008 12:04 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 74 of 319 (491964)
12-24-2008 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Buzsaw
12-24-2008 7:22 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
Earth/planet, without form, came before seas and dry land were formed.
That's what the text says. Are you denying the text?
Genesis 1:2: 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.
If you're abandoning the text, then just come out and say it.
quote:
Geologists weren't there to state, empirically, one way or the other.
Irrelevant. The rocks themselves were there. All we have to do is examine them and they will tell us what happened. That's why we know that the dry land came first and the water came second: The rocks say so.
Are you claiming that the rocks are wrong?
quote:
When the waters were evaporated to form the atmosphere, the seas and dry land were created, i.e. cause and effect.
Except the dry land came first. The water came second. Ergo, there could not be an "evaporation to form the atmosphere." There was already dry land and atmosphere before there was water.
quote:
Geologists were not there to empirically confirm their interpretation of prehistoric events.
Again, irrelevant. We don't have to be there. The rocks were there. They'll tell you what happened. They say the water came second.
Are you saying the rocks are wrong?
I do hope you are petitioning your local authorities to release all of those people from jail who were convicted without eyewitnesses. The vast majority of crimes take place without witnesses. The only way we can tell who did it is by using forensics to examine the remains of the act. By your logic, there is absolutely no use to forensics.
Go ahead, Buzsaw...tell us how you really feel about examining evidence and using it to determine what happened even though we weren't there to see it.
Of course, I should point out that the author of Genesis wasn't there to see it, either. In fact, we don't even have an original copy of Genesis. How very telling that you are complaining about a process that involves examining rocks that were actually there when the earth was formed when you don't have an original source of your own to refer to.
If you're truly going to discard geology as a source, then you have to discard the Bible along with it as the Bible is a much shakier source.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2008 7:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2008 6:13 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 76 of 319 (492036)
12-26-2008 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by jaywill
12-25-2008 12:04 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
quote:
The Big Bang describes the inflation and expansion of the universe, not the creation.
An agnostic scientist, Robert Jastrow, wrote this
Who cares? Are you seriously trying to run the argument from authority past me? It doesn't matter what any scientist, no matter how prominent, thinks. The only thing that matters is what the data says. The Big Bang is not about the creation of the universe. It is about the expansion of the universe.
If you want to talk about the creation of the universe, you need to move beyond the Big Bang and go into the field of cosmogenesis. What do you have to say about the various instantons that have been theorized? Tuork-Hawking is interesting. I seem to recall that there was a discussion here (Message 170) where we talked about it. ICANT showed himself to be a quote-miner in the process.
quote:
This scientist describes the Big Bang not just as expansion and inflation but as "the origin of the world."
And he would be wrong. Or, at least more accurately, you are misquoting him. We've already shown that ICANT will misquote any source to justify his preconceived notion in an attempt to play argument-from-authority. Are we about to do the same with you?
Question: What was Jastrow speaking of at the time he made this statement? Was he actually talking about the Big Bang or was he instead talking about how scientists approach their work? Where'd you pull this quote from? Given the formatting, it appears to have come from Crossexamined.org, a right-wing, creationist web site. Was it? Be honest.
You certainly didn't pull it from the original source, God and the Astronomers. If you had, one would wonder why you didn't pull up this nugget from his book:
Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. All the details differ, but the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.
See, the issue is not that Jastrow is contradicting me (and he isn't.) It's that you don't understand what he is trying to say. You're cherry-picking quotes you don't understand, pulled from another web site rather than from the original source, and are expecting me to just roll over and play dead.
Jastrow is simply pointing out that the universe had a beginning. He wants there to be wonder in that fact, and I am hardly arguing against that. But you are attaching much more emotional and supernatural significance to his use of the phrase, "origin of the world," or at the very least a very different significance to it.
But since you seem to want to play argument-from-authority, here's what Turok has to say:
What does it mean for a physicist to describe the beginning of time? Try and think of space and time together as Einstein taught us to do, and to think how the big bang began. You can think of space and time as constituting the surface of a cone. The cone is place vertically with its sharp tip down. Time runs up the cone: space runs around it. Time and space end at the sharp tip. The tip is 'singular' in mathematical terms, because it isn't smooth, and if this were a model of the universe we would find our equations break down there. The universes found by Hawking and me look like the cone but the tip of the cone is rounded out, replaced by our 'instanton', which is smooth. If you were sitting in the instanton you would be confused about what is space and what is time because all directions along the surface of the rounded cone are horzontal at the bottom. In effect the 'timeline' direction has rotated into a 'spacelike' one. This is just what we need to explain how time began. In effect the distinction between space and time is blurred and space then contracts to a point and disappears. But crucially the equations of physics work everywhere.
So since Turok says Jastrow is wrong, where does that leave your argument?
quote:
This particular scientist founded NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. I assume he knows something about cosmology.
Indeed, he does. The question, however, is do you? You clearly didn't read his book, so what on earth makes you think you understand the quote-mine you plagiarized from someone else? What the book you're plagiarizing a quote-mine from is trying to do is show why scientists came to accept the Big Bang Theory. It was not always so. Going back to Lematre and Hubble, there was plenty of resistance. It's the reason Einstein developed a cosmological constant: He thought the universe was neither expanding nor contracting. However, gravity would necessarily cause such a universe to collapse. The cosmological constant resulted in the universe maintaining its state. But, eventually the evidence piled up and even Einstein admitted that he had made a huge blunder.
quote:
I guess I'd beging by saying the air is in the human ear?
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what is in your ear in order for you to be able to hear sound underwater. The sound has to travel from the source to your ear first. If that medium is liquid, what does it matter if your ear has air in it if your claim is that sound requires air to travel through?
And even more irrelevant, the air in your ears has nothing to do with your ability to hear. Your eardrum vibrates (even when you are underwater and your ear canal is full of water) which sets in motion the three bones of your ear (which were evolved from bones of the reptilian jaw which we can directly show you in the fossil record) which sets up a vibrational pattern in your cochlea which is lined with sensory cells that go to your brain to be processed.
Sound is a compression wave of a medium. That's why sound doesn't travel through vacuum: There is no medium to fluctuation.
quote:
If not air then, in the universe to carry the sound of Bang, then liquid doesn't seem to make the language problem go away.
You're missing the point. Didn't you read my post? You quoted it...didn't you bother to peruse it? The answers you are looking for are contained in it. In fact, they are the very next sentences from the one you quoted just now:
Sound is the fluctuation of a medium. At the time of the Big Bang, the universe was not empty. In fact, all matter was condensed into a tiny space. I dare say if you had audio equipment that could have survived, there would have been quite a lot of sound.
But on top of that, "bang" refers to more than just sound. Again, you must deal with context. When a word has multiple meanings, you cannot simply substitute one for another and expect to have a legitimate interpretation. To do so is the logical error of equivocation.
Instead, since we are dealing with a scenario described by language, you have to use the tools of language to interpret it. The reason "bang" is used is because it is a useful descriptor for what happened: A tremendous explosion in multiple senses. Not merely a throwing out of matter and energy into space but also a huge expansion of space, itself.
As Hawking put it, the Big Bang happened everywhere at once.
quote:
My point is that the expression Big Bang could be well considered as scientifically imprecise language.
Why? What part of "rapid expansion of energy" is not encompassed by the word "bang"? What part of "everywhere" and "resulting in the universe that we see today" is not encompassed by the word "big"? You seem to be implying that science is not allowed to use metaphor when coming up with a name for a field.
quote:
Such language of imprecise expressions according to modern standards are also found in Genesis.
Huh? You're comparing a pithy statement that is a reference for an entire field of study to a couple minutes of oral tradition?
quote:
I haven't yet been able to get my mind around space expanding into ... ?, that which is not space.
The fact that you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true. I can't wrap my mind around Linear A (and neither can anybody else), but I do know it is an actual language. I understand the frustration. I really do. At my undergrad, they made you take fundamental courses in all of the other fields no matter what your major: Math, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering. After the basics, there is what we students called the "gatekeeper." It was the class where you came to realize what your major really should be. If you got through it with ease, then you should consider continuing. If it was hell, then perhaps you should reconsider. For math, it was "Fundamental Concepts" (which dealt with Real Analysis), For physics, it was Electricity and Magnetism. For chemistry, Physical Chemistry. For engineeing, Systems. You bang your head against all the walls and find the one that leaves the smallest or prettiest stain.
Physics and I do not get along. You know those rides in the amusement park where you get in a room, it spins around, and the floor drops down with everybody sticking to it? I don't. Low coefficient of drag, I suppose, but I go down with the floor. Should've been a hint. My abilities in math had me understanding things intuitively, but actually applying it was the problem. Doing the math was a snap...figuring out which math to do was the problem.
So I, too, have a hard time visualizing the concept of space expanding when there is nothing to expand into. But that's what the observations show. The balloon metaphor is helpful, but it's just a metaphor. That isn't the way it's really happening.
quote:
Again the limitation of language has to be accounted for.
Nice try, but that's my argument. Why use a phrase that specifically intimates a literal, 24-hour day when you didn't mean that? Especially when there are plenty of other phrases that will indicate an indefinite period of time?
quote:
I don't know why the same realization cannot be had in reading a revelation about the origin of the world in Genesis.
Because if I say to you, "It took a day, and by 'day,' I mean a literal, 24-hour day," there is no way to interpret that to mean that it took more than 24 hours. The phrasing used in Genesis 1 is not metaphorical to mean more than 24 hours. The phrasing used specifically intimates a literal, 24-hour day. If the author didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why use a phrase that specifically means that when there were so many other phrasings that could have been used?
quote:
It seems some Bible skeptics use leeway for modern Cosmology but cut no slack to the writer of Genesis 1.
Incorrect. Instead, it seems that there are people who are aware when metaphorical language is being used and thus analyze the statement as a metaphor and when literal language is being used and thus analyze the statement literally.
quote:
Again - Big Bang? What was Big? What defines Big there? Space is being somehow created ?
What part of "resulting in the entire universe as we see it today" is not encompassed by the word "big"? Do you watch Mythbusters? It's a show on the Discovery Channel where they take various nuggets of "wisdom" and put them to the test: If you really urinate on the third rail, will you get electrocuted? (No. Your urine does not remain in a steady stream but rather immediately separates into droplets, thus not allowing any current to flow back to you.) If you dropped a penny off the Empire State Building, would it kill somebody on the ground? (No. The terminal velocity of a penny combined with its miniscule mass is not enough to truly damage someone. Oh, it'll hurt, but it won't cause any serious damage.)
They were testing a myth about cleaning out the inside of a cement truck with dynamite. The myth states that a cement truck for whatever reason was left alone with a load of cement in it which hardened. The owner used dynamite to bust the cement into chunks. So, they got a cement truck with cement in it that had dried and then started using dynamite to see what effect it would have.
They started off with a cherry bomb. As you might expect, not much happened. They kept on increasing the amount of explosive used until they finally got some chunks to come off of the churners inside the barrel. They found that 1 pound of black powder would get some chunks off the walls, but nothing from the floor; a stick-and-a-half of dynamite seemed to do better. With the myth out of the way, they decided to do what they always do whenever anything includes the use of explosives: Dial the knob to 11.
They drove the cement truck out to a blasting range, having to warn everyone around for miles, get a couple miles away themselves, and have the FBI rig up the explosive device: 850 pounds of explosives. The truck literally vanishes from the screen (though there are pieces...strangely, one tire survives without a puncture). As Jamie Hyneman said, "This has got nothing to do with the myth. This is just a big boom."
An explosion that happened everywhere at once and resulted in a universe billions of lightyears across is not accurately described by the word "big"?
Now, that's a metaphorical statement since "big" is a subjective term. But that space is created is not metaphorical in any sense. It is literally what happened.
quote:
Or are you going to tell that space is compressed and expanding but not being created?
No. It is literally being created.
Out of nothing.
Into nothing.
I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding it, but that's what is happening. We can directly measure it.
quote:
Either way, I think I have to make allowances for the limitation of human language.
Indeed. But the problem is not one of not having words to describe what you want to but rather using words that specifically and directly mean the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. If the authors of Genesis didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why did they use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day?
quote:
Light coming into being on Day #1 and light bearers coming in at Day #4 is not implausible to me.
Indeed, but the problem is that the earth gets formed the day before, on day 3. And thus, we have a few massive problems:
  1. The light on earth only comes from the sun and other stars, which won't come into being until the next day.
  2. The fruit-bearing plants get created on day 3, before the sun. If these "days" are going to be something other than literal, 24-hour days, how did these plants survive since the only light that comes to the earth is from the sun and other stars. Starlight is not sufficient for plants to grow in, so where did this other light come from since the sun isn't around?
  3. The earth is made before the sun which is completely backwards. The sun came first.
So we've gone from the frying pan into the fire. We've got an inverted process that will guarantee the destruction of all life on the planet being claimed to create life.
quote:
It is not less plausible than space compressed or space expanding beyond the boudary of which space does not exist.
Only because you don't understand the science. You seem to think that because you don't understand it, nobody else does, either. Have you bothered to try? No, reading a web site or a mass-market book won't help you to understand it. I mean have you bothered to actually get yourself to school to formally study physics so that you can understand the theory?
If not, what makes you think you are capable of figuring it out on your own? We've already determined that you won't even bother to read the original source material. What makes you think you can understand what it means given that you don't even know the context in which it was said?
quote:
It is not less plausible than space compressed or space expanding beyond the boudary of which space does not exist.
You're comparing a formalized study of the universe complete with actual results to wishful thinking regarding literary analysis? I'm still awaiting an answer to my question:
If the authors of Genesis didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why did they use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day?
quote:
And I see God as wanting to get across to the maximum number of people
That doesn't answer the question. If you didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day? Are you insinuating that Hebrew has no way to convey a longer period of time?
quote:
not an exhaustive discription of how He created everything, but an accessible general and economical explanation.
Irrelevant. I'm not asking for equations. I'm simply asking why the text uses a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day when the intention was to convey a length of time much longer than that.
quote:
If He wanted to give all details then maybe there would have been 20 books just to describe the nature of water. The minute details that went into the measurements of the tabernacle, ark, garments and pristly utinsils show that the author of Genesis, Exodus certainly was intelligent enough to master technical details.
Irrelevant. I'm not asking for equations. I'm simply asking why the text uses a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day when the intention was to convey a length of time much longer than that. Are you insinuating that Hebrew has no way to convey a longer period of time than a day?
quote:
I am not playing at anything.
Yes, you are. You're trying to say that the "light to rule the day" might be something other than the sun and the "light to rule the night" might be something other than the moon, regardless of the fact that the stars are mentioned immediately after.
quote:
Of course it is a reference to the sun. The sun was one of the light-holders. You can see light without being able to locate the origin of it, its holder, its bearer.
Irrelevant. The question is not the existence of light. The question is where the light came from. The only light that strikes the earth is light from stars, the closest one being that really big one we call the sun.
Therefore, since there were no stars until the fourth day, after the earth was formed, where did the light striking the earth come from?
quote:
The RcV brngs this out in the translation because the light of verse 3 is a different word from light bearers in verses 14-19.
Incorrect. The word used is 'owr. It gets inflected, but the root is the same. You're trying to imply that there is a huge syntactical difference between 'owr and me'owr, aren't you?
At any rate, this is irrelevant. Since the only light that strikes the earth comes from stars and there weren't any stars until the day after the earth came into being and since you are saying that "day" in this context doesn't mean a literal, 24-hour day despite a phrasing that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day, where did this light come from?
quote:
Once again, the Recovery Version brings out in the translation that the word for light bearer Day 4 is not the same for light on Day 1
Incorrect.
quote:
Have you ever noticed that the moon or sun behind cloud can give the sky a general glow of light?
Irrelevant. Actually, it proves my point: The general glow only exists because of the light coming from the sun/moon. If you were to take the sun/moon away, there would be no glow.
Since the sun/moon did not exist until after the earth came into being, where was this glow coming from?
quote:
It is no less plausible then "space expanding" or "space inflating".
We have actual evidence of that. Where did the light striking the earth for a period of more than 24 hours come from that wasn't starlight? The only light that strikes the earth is starlight. So for a period greater than 24 hours, there was a "glow." Where did this "glow" come from since there were no stars?
quote:
No, "made" does not have to mean that the sun, moon, and stars were created out of nothing on the fourth day.
I never said they did. Stars are not made out of nothing. They are made out of hydrogen. But hydrogen doesn't glow.
So we're left with my original conclusion: There is no question as to what was going on: The creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
But no light strikes the earth that isn't from stars. So where did this "glow" come from? Since you're claiming that these "days" are longer than 24-hours, how on earth did plants survive? The only light good enough to get them to grow is sunlight and sunlight wouldn't become availabe until day 4 which is decidedly longer than 24 hours from day 3.
quote:
You cannot insist on that sense in the Hebrew.
Since you're trying to force a meaning on me that I wasn't using, then I can insist upon anything I wish. There is no question as to what was going on: The creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
You will note that I didn't mention how they were made...just that they were. This is in accordance to my previous statement that I am not asking Genesis to provide equations, just to mean what it directly says: If it didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day?
quote:
The word is also used for trimming a beard or trimming finger nails. It is used for preparing a meal.
And none of those are intended here. Remember, that's my argument: Context will tell you what is meant. The phrasing used makes it clear: There was no sun, moon, or stars before the fourth day. God made them on the fourth day. He specifically declares that he is going to make them after the third and before the fifth.
Genesis 1:13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
If you're going to abandon the text, just say so.
quote:
You do not have to insist that the only meaning there is that, before the fourth day no sun existed.
Actually, I do because that's what the text says. There was no sun, moon, or stars until the fourth day.
Since no light strikes the earth except that from the stars which did not exist until the fourth day, where did the light come from that allowed the plants to live that came into existence on day three?
quote:
The dry land came up from under the water and was made to appear on the third day.
But before that, there was no dry land. That's in direct contradiction to geology: Dry land first, water second.
quote:
Other creation accounts in the Bible show God stretching forth the heavens before laying the foundation of the earth.
So you're saying that the Bible can't even gets its own story straight? If Zechariah contradicts Genesis, why are you being so insistent upon Genesis being correct?
Of course, Zechariah says no such thing. The passage you quoted simply states the actions god engaged in. It does not prescribe an order.
quote:
If here stretching forth the heavens includes not only space but thge atronomical bodies in the heavens, then this passage would mean the stars were stretched forth before the earth's foundation was laid.
Incorrect. You get to choose which way you're incorrect: Either Zechariah contradicts Genesis or Zechariah doesn't prescribe an order. If I tell you that I performed in Cabaret and directed Six Characters in Search of an Author, can you tell which one I did first?
quote:
No problem at all. It could come from the sun.
No, it can't. The sun doesn't exist. It won't exist until the fourth day. Therefore, light from the sun cannot be the source for the light striking the earth on the third day. And since the only light that strikes the earth comes from stars, where did this "glow" come from?
quote:
But as it was unvieled to the prophet in a series of revelatory visions, he didn't see where it was coming from until the fourth day.
Irrelevant. The "revelation" is that the sun didn't come into existence until the fourth day. So where on the third day was the light coming from? The only light that strikes the earth is from starlight. With no stars, how could there be any glow?
quote:
Okay, assuming that all geologist /astro physicists agree with your statement, it still does not render Genesis factually incorrect.
Hmmm...Genesis says water first, then dry land. Genesis says earth first, then sun.
Geology says dry land first, then water. Astronomy says sun first, then earth.
Yeah...those can be reconciled. "First" doesn't actually mean "preceding." "Second" doesn't really mean "following."
quote:
Regardless of whether the earth was first solid land or ocean over land
Incorrect. That is the precise issue under contention.
quote:
there is room in the original language to understand that it BECAME something else.
Incorrect. The phrasing is specific and unambiguous. That's why we know that Genesis 1 means literal, 24-hour days. If the authors didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day?
The phrasing of Genesis is quite clear: The earth did not exist ("without form and void") and yet there was water ("god moved upon the face of the waters.") That water existed until the dry land poked out of it ("let the dry land appear.")
There is no "becoming something else" because the description is clear and specific: An earth covered in water and then land poked up out of it. That's in direct contradiction to geology.
quote:
Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies wrote this about the Big Bang.
Irrelevant. You don't understand what he was trying to say, mostly because you never actually read Jastrow's work.
Instead, you plagiarized a quote-mine.
At any rate, he's wrong. Strange how people who don't listen to people who claim that they "cannot hope to discover" something find exactly what it is that people claim cannot be found.
Hint: Your final quote is from the 80s. Hawking and Turok published their findings in the 90s. Jastrow died this year. Can you find a quote of his that gives his opinion regarding the new work that was done after he made his claim of impossibility? That'll require actually reading his work rather than relying on plagiarized quote-mines, though.
Again, you have fallen for the argument from authority: It doesn't matter what Jastrow says. It only matters what he can prove. And the fact that people have come up with testable theories regarding cosmogenesis means he couldn't prove it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2008 12:04 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 12-27-2008 1:02 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 12-27-2008 1:37 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 91 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2008 6:18 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 87 of 319 (492184)
12-29-2008 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Itinerant Lurker
12-27-2008 10:13 AM


Itinerant Lurker responds to me:
quote:
one thing to keep in mind is that the goal of the Genesis account was not to give an understandable description of the process as much as it's goal was to give an understandable description of who was behind the process.
But if the process described is completely wrong in every aspect, how can we possibly trust what it describes about who was behind it?
quote:
Again, this assumes that the purpose of the account is to provide an accurate description of the process of creation instead of the creator.
Incorrect. This assumes that you want your audience to trust you about what you say. If your description is flawed at every level about what we can independently verify, how does that earn our trust about the things we need to take on faith?
quote:
Genesis wasn't written that way, nor was it translated down through the centuries with that goal in mind and no, it was not translated and passed down perfectly.
If it got that wrong, what else did it get wrong?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 12-27-2008 10:13 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 88 of 319 (492187)
12-29-2008 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by jaywill
12-27-2008 1:02 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
If you don't care what that scientist says, we can also say we don't care what you say. You kick Jastrow to the side. Why can't we kick you off to the side?
Who said you couldn't? I certainly know I didn't. I don't expect anybody to take anything I say to be true simply because I say so. That's the argument from authority and if I insist it doesn't apply to your arguments, I certainly don't insist it apply to mine.
I've provided you my data and my process. Please, make a response to them, but actually respond to the data and process. As is so often the case, I wind up asking the same question over and over and never get an answer.
quote:
Why shouldn't I simply ignore your opinion then?
Because in a discussion with integrity, you pay attention to what the other person says and respond to it. You certainly don't accept it to be true just because the other person said it.
When are you going to answer my questions?
quote:
Oh, because you're right of course and he's wrong ?
No, because you plagiarized a quote-mine and I provide complete context. You can ask me anything you want about my data and my process and I will do everything I can to answer your questions. You will avoid and evade, despite my directly asking you to answer a plain question, clearly stated.
I certainly don't ask you to take my statements to be true just because I say so. I ask you to look at my data and process and respond to them with more data and process.
What do you think of the Turok-Hawking instanton?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 12-27-2008 1:02 PM jaywill 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