1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Old Is the World

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Pah, Sep 13, 2004.

  1. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    Ceridwen 18 here is more of my reply:

    What Holds Up the Earth?

    In ancient times, humans were perplexed by other questions about the cosmos: What is the earth resting on? What holds up the sun, the moon, and the stars? They had no knowledge of the law of universal gravitation, formulated by Isaac Newton and published in 1687. The idea that heavenly bodies are, in effect, suspended in empty space upon nothing was unknown to them. Thus, their explanations often suggested that tangible objects or substances held the earth and other heavenly bodies aloft.

    For example, one ancient theory, perhaps originated by people who lived on an island, was that the earth was surrounded by water and that it floated in these waters. The Hindus conceived that the earth had several foundations, one on top of the other. It rested on four elephants, the elephants stood on an enormous tortoise, the tortoise stood on an immense serpent, and the coiled serpent floated on universal waters. Empedocles, a Greek philosopher of the fifth century B.C.E., believed that the earth rested upon a whirlwind and that this whirlwind was the cause of the motion of the heavenly bodies.

    Among the most influential views were those of Aristotle. Although he theorized that the earth is a sphere, he denied that it could ever hang in empty space. In his treatise On the Heavens, when refuting the notion that the earth rests on water, he said: “It is not the nature of water, any more than of earth, to stay in mid-air: it must have something to rest upon.” So, what does the earth “rest upon”? Aristotle taught that the sun, the moon, and the stars were attached to the surface of solid, transparent spheres. Sphere lay nestled within sphere, with the earth—immobile—at the center. As the spheres revolved within one another, the objects on them—the sun, the moon, and the planets—moved across the sky.

    Aristotle’s explanation seemed logical. If the heavenly bodies were not firmly attached to something, how else could they stay aloft? The views of the revered Aristotle were accepted as fact for some 2,000 years. According to The New Encyclopædia Britannica, in the 16th and 17th centuries his teachings “ascended to the status of religious dogma” in the eyes of the church.

    With the invention of the telescope, astronomers began to question Aristotle’s theory. Still, the answer eluded them until Sir Isaac Newton explained that the planets are suspended in empty space, held in their orbits by an invisible force—gravity. It seemed incredible, and some of Newton’s colleagues found it hard to believe that space could be a void, largely empty of substance.

    What does the Bible have to say on this question? Nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated with extraordinary clarity that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the original Hebrew, the word for “nothing” (beli-mah´) used here literally means “without anything.” The Contemporary English Version uses the expression, “on empty space.”

    A planet hanging “on empty space” was not at all how most people in those days pictured the earth. Yet, far ahead of his time, the Bible writer recorded a statement that is scientifically sound.
     
  2. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    Ceridwen 18
    As I said earlier, the Bible has consistently triumphed over criticism. For instance, when it is read with an open mind, it is found to be in harmony with true science. Of course, the Bible was prepared as a spiritual guide, not as a science textbook. Let’s consider three more examples and see if the Bible agrees with scientific facts.

    Anatomy: The Bible accurately says that ‘all the parts’ of a human embryo are “in writing.” (Psalm 139:13-16) The brain, the heart, the lungs, the eyes—these and all the other body parts are ‘written down’ in the genetic code of the fertilized egg in the mother’s womb. Contained in this code are internal timetables for the appearance of each of these parts in proper order. And just think! This fact about the development of the human body was recorded in the Bible almost 3,000 years before scientists discovered the genetic code.

    Animal life: According to the Bible, “the hare . . . is a chewer of the cud.” (Leviticus 11:6) This was scoffed at for until fairly recently. Notice what François Bourlière (The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, page 41) says: “The habit of ‘refection,’ or passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in the rabbits and hares. Domestic rabbits usually eat and swallow without chewing their night droppings, which form in the morning as much as half the total contents of the stomach. In the wild rabbit refection takes place twice daily, and the same habit is reported for the European hare.” In this regard, the work Mammals of the World (by E. P. Walker, 1964, Volume II, page 647) states: “This may be similar to ‘chewing the cud’ in ruminant mammals.”

    Geology: Regarding the Bible account of creation, the noted geologist Wallace Pratt said: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” Pratt noted that the order of events in Genesis—the origin of oceans, the emergence of land, and then the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals—is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

    Medicine: In his book The Physician Examines the Bible, C. Raimer Smith wrote: “It is very surprising to me that the Bible is so accurate from the medical standpoint. . . . Where treatment is mentioned, as for boils, wounds, etc., it is correct even by modern standards. . . . Many superstitions are still believed by large numbers of people such as, that a buckeye in the pocket will prevent rheumatism; that handling toads will cause warts; that wearing red flannel around the neck will cure a sore throat; that an asafetida bag will prevent diseases; that every time a child is sick it has worms; etc., but no such statements are found in the Bible. This in itself is remarkable and to me is another proof of its divine origin.”
     
  3. standing_on_one_foot

    standing_on_one_foot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Ratings:
    +151
    Genetics: Jacob affecting the outcome of the sheeps' mating by placing rods near them...

    Astronomy: The appearance of the Earth and its plant life before the sun and stars...

    Some areas it's accurate and some it's not, I think.
     
  4. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +860
    God made light on the first day and used it to seperate the days.
    He didn`t make the sun and moon until the 3rd day...where`d the light on the first day come from?
    How can you have a morning and night without the sun?
    The moon isn`t even a light.
    Genesis 1:3
    And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

    Genesis 1:16
    And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


    Genesis 1 has man made after the beasts while Genesis 2 has man made before the beasts.
    Genesis 1:25-27
    And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

    Genesis 2:18-19
    And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


    Genesis 1 has man and woman made at the same time.
    Genesis 2 has man made way before woman.
    Genesis 1:27
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    Genesis 2:18-22
    And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


    Did birds come from the water or the ground?
    Genesis 1 has them coming from water.
    Genesis 2 has them coming from the ground.
    Genesis 1:20-21
    "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

    Genesis 2:19
    "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."


    How many feet do insects have?

    Leviticus 11:23
    But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.


    The sun stood still?
    Ok they were mistaken..maybe a typo they meant that the Earth stopped it`s revolution.
    What do you think would happen if the Earth stopped even for a second?

    Joshua 10:12-12
    Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
    And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


    The Earth stands on pillars.

    1 Samuel 2:8
    He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.


    God moves the sun backwards?

    2 Kings 20:11
    And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.


    The Earth is flat?
    Square maybe?
    Rectangular?

    Revelation 7:1
    And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

    Daniel 4:10-11
    Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
    The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:


    I could literally do this all day.

    The assertion that the Bible has any consistent scientific value whatsoever is well...untrue.
     
  5. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    standing_on_one_foot



    Just as I did with Mr_Spinkles, let me explain that I did not/do not mean to offend or attack you. It is probably a mistake to do so, but I sometimes speak in very general sweeping terms because I am thinking of everyone besides you that may read this post. I apologize. My goal in all of this is to make people think and, possibly, to change their mind about the Bible.



    The best example I can give you "as to how the scientific community is both discarding theories like crazy while at the same time clinging to them" is that of evolution. Under the big umbrella of the "evolution theory" there are very many, for want of a better term, "sub theories". Many of these are diametrically opposed. And in a few years from now most will have fallen from favor and will have been discarded. Yet devout evolutionist will still be clinging to the theory of evolution.



    Let me defer answering your "why bother? And why do none of the scientists seem to care"? I think you are asking the same question as Ceridwen018 and I am waiting for him to respond. Hopefully I will be able to answer both of you at the same time.



    My original post was so long that I stopped at the end of “day one”. But your questions and points have shown me that we need to continue on and consider the other days also. That will take some time to prepare but I want to clear up some of the things you bring up. I will get back to you on this one. I will make this comment again, "you need to go back and read it, my original post, again".



    Let me repeat it again, the planet earth was created at Genesis 1:1. How else could you have all that is going on in Genesis 1:2? At Genesis 1:3 “six days” or periods of intense, final preparation of the already created earth begins.



    Yes I would be so kind, an explanation is in the works.
     
  6. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +860
    This is the very nature of science.
    This is why it is worthy because the will change their ideas when confronted with opposing evidence.
    They cannot know everything all at once, the accumulation of knowledge is like anything else it takes time and there are mistakes made along the way.
    These sub-theories as you call them don`t change the truth of evolution they just change some part of the whole and then the whole is altered to meet the requirements of the new evidence.
    There has been no evidence that directly confronts the theory of evolution.

    This is how the theory of gravity was eventually accepted..do you doubt gravity as well?

    Earlier you posted a list of periodicals that dealt with the subject of fraud in science.
    Did you notice that the sources for over 95% of the articles you cited were the very highest acclaimed scientific journals we have?

    These are the same journals that are the very first to publish anything of relevance to the scientific community.

    They are actively policing and correcting themselves.

    I can trust that.
     
  7. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    standing_on_one_foot

    Let me reiterate. The Bible’s account of creation was written more than 3500 years ago. It was written in the everyday language and style of the people for which it was written. In other words, it was written using the limited vocabulary, the idioms, metaphor and other common types of figure of speech that made it easier for those people to understand. That means that some passages are best understood as being metaphorical or figurative rather than literal. Yet it is accurate. It is not a science textbook and therefore does not use the precise, technical language that such would use and it also only gives a partial detailing of the events. In this also there are two extremes, those would will contend that every single word, as presented in the KJV or some other favorite translation, is exact and literal and those that will contend that every single word is metaphorical and figurative or is a “myth” and that it need not be given serious consideration. As noted before, the truth will not be found in the extremes.

    As I noted in earlier posts, there are two extremes that should be avoided. I know this will be hard for some, but for the moment, for the sake of this argument, suspend belief in the theories of science, that is to say those theories that do not have demonstrable facts to support them; suspend belief in timelines and mistaken or literal interpretations that neither proven science nor common sense support. If one can read the Bible, but especially the Bible’s account of creation, with an open mind, putting away any preconceived ideas and considering all the above, an amazing thing becomes apparent. The Bible’s account reveals an accurate knowledge of ‘scientific’ facts and this knowledge is well beyond what was humanly possible at that time.

    Again, the Bible record, in stating, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), leaves matters indefinite as to time. This use of the term “beginning” is therefore unassailable, regardless of the age scientists or creationists may seek to attach to the earthly globe and to the various planets and other heavenly bodies. The actual time of creation of the material, physical heavens and earth may be very old. These events are not included in the events of the “first day”.

    At Genesis 1:2 we find a description of interim activities in the preparation of the earth. The wording of verse two conveys three main ideas, (1) a description at the surface and of the overall condition of the earth, from the perspective of an observer, had an observer actually been present, (2) a great deal of work was going on and (3) that work was being done in a deliberate (in contrast to the chaos) very powerful and yet very caring or “brooding” manner. Verse two leaves matters indefinite as to time, also.

    From Genesis 1:3 through 2:3 we are provided with a broad and general outline of six creative "days" or time periods and a “seventh” or “rest” day or period. In majestic, well-chosen words, the first chapter gives an account of the creative work relative to the earth. God through Moses does this by describing the events of six time periods called days, each beginning with an evening, when the creative work for that period is undefined, and ending in the brightness of a morning, as the glory of the creative work becomes clearly manifest. God has Moses describe only the major events of creative work and, again, relative to a viewpoint from the surface of the earth. On successive “days” appear the light; the expanse of the atmosphere; dry land and vegetation; the luminaries to divide day and night and to mark time; fish and fowl; and land animals and finally man. God here makes known his law governing “kinds”, the impassable barrier making it impossible for one kind to evolve into another. Having made man in His own image, God announces His threefold purpose for man on earth: to fill it with righteous offspring, to subdue it, and to have in subjection the animal creation. The seventh “day” is blessed and pronounced sacred by God, who then proceeds ‘to rest from all his work that he has made.’

    The account next shifts to give a close-up, or magnified view, of God’s creative work as it pertains to man in particular versus the earth in general. It includes descriptions of the garden of Eden and its location, states God’s law of the forbidden tree, relates Adam’s naming of the animals and then gives the account of God’s arranging the first marriage by forming a wife from Adam’s own body and bringing her to Adam. The woman eats the forbidden fruit and persuades her husband to join her in rebellion, and so Eden becomes defiled through disobedience. God immediately points to the means by which his express will, his fore stated divine purposes, will be accomplished (Genesis 3:15). Finally, man is then expelled from the garden.

    This parallel account, from Genesis 2:5 onward, takes up at a point in the third "day", after dry land appears but before land plants were created and supplies details not furnished in the broad outline of Genesis chapter 1. As for the parallel accounts, please remember that God through Moses was, again deliberately, powerfully and with great care, preparing those nomadic, pastoral tribes of people, that had just endured many years of slavery, to become the nation that, after the passage of a considerable amount of time, would produce the “seed” foretold at Genesis 3:15. Moses wrote the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), the book of Job and several of the Psalms during the 40 plus years spent in the wilderness. The two creation accounts may not have been written consecutively and may have been written in response to conditions or needs within the camp at the time that are lost on the modern reader and that account for the different perspective and details included or may have been written to drive home different lessons that needed to be taught/learned.

    When the six creative “days” commenced, the sun, moon, stars and the planet earth were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. Prior to commencement of these six “days” of creative activity “the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving [or brooding] over the water” (Genesis 1:2). Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth, preventing light from reaching its surface (Job 38:9).

    So no matter how long the creative “days” might prove to be, verses 1 and 2 describe things already accomplished and they fall outside any time frame encompassing the creative days. If geologists want to say that the earth is 4 billion years old, or astronomers want to make the universe 20 billion years old, the Bible student has no quarrel with them. The Bible simply does not indicate the time of those events.

    With the basic point established that the Bible text does not conflict with scientific theories about the age of the universe, we may also leave open the question of the age and origin of geologic strata. The Bible says nothing at all about the formation of sedimentary layers, whether at the time of the Flood or earlier. All the voluminous writings of creationists on this subject have been motivated by the desire to reconcile the existence of the geologic column and its fossils, dinosaurs and all, with their claim for a 6- to 10-thousand-year age of the earth. If this claim is invalid, all the rest of the argument is beside the point.
     
  8. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    continuation of the above

    Science Supports Creation
    There is a wealth of scientific evidence for creation. The weight of such evidence has moved many leading scientists of the 20th century to speak publicly of creation and some of a Creator. Among these have been William T. Kelvin, Dmitri Mendeleev, Robert A. Millikan, Arthur H. Compton, Paul Dirac, George Gamov, Warren Weaver and Wernher von Braun, to name a few.

    Robert Jastrow, in his book God and the Astronomers, has mustered cosmological arguments for creation. Speaking of the big bang theory of the origin of the universe, many scientists have freely used the word “creation”. Even scientists whose personal predilections are against the idea of creation reluctantly confess that the convincing nature of the evidence leaves them wondering.

    Now let’s move on to Day One. The events of the “first day” begin with the first recorded creative declarative, “Let there be light”. Remember that “the heavens and the earth” already existed when that statement was made. But the creationist would have us believe that light was not created along with the “heavens” but was created at this point. That doesn’t make much sense, does it? To them this is a record of light’s creation as if someone flipped a switch and there was a flash of light. But what does the Bible really say? Verse 2 informed us that the surface of the earth was in “total darkness”. At that early point, something—perhaps a mixture of water vapor, other gases, and volcanic smoke and dust—must have prevented sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth (Job 8:9). Then in verse three the Bible describes the first creative period this way: “God proceeded to say, ‘Let there be light’; and gradually light came into existence”—Genesis 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J. W. Watts. Where? Not in the universe as a whole but at the surface of the earth that had been in total darkness. “Diffused light” (as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible. See footnote b for verse 14) now evidently began “gradually” penetrating the cloud layers even though the sources of that light could not yet be discerned from the earth’s surface. Therefore, the case must be that by the close of Day One, in verse five, we find the earth is in its orbit around the sun (providing the light though not yet visible through the canopy, that doesn’t happen till day four) and rotating on its axis (producing alternating periods of day and night). The expression “gradually . . . came” accurately reflects a form of the Hebrew verb involved, denoting a progressive action that takes time to complete. This verb form can be found some 40 times in Genesis chapter 1, and it is a key to its proper understanding. What God began in the figurative evening of a creative period, age or epoch, became progressively clear, or apparent, in the morning of that “day.” Also, what was started in one period did not have to be fully completed when the next period began. For we find that light gradually began to appear on the first “day,” yet it was not until the fourth creative period that the sun, moon, and stars could be discerned (Genesis 1:14-19).

    Now let’s move on to Day Two. On Day Two God made an expanse by causing a division to occur separating “the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse”. Some waters remained on the earth, but a very great amount of water was raised high above the surface of the earth. As a result, a blanket or canopy of water vapor surrounded the earth. The ancient record does not—and need not—describe the mechanisms used. Instead, the Bible focuses on the creation of the expanse between the upper and surface waters that God called Heaven. However, this “heaven” was with relation to the earth, as the waters suspended above the expanse are not said to enclosed the sun, moon and stars or other bodies of the outer heavens. These are the ‘earthly’, inner or lower heavens in which birds fly. Even today people use this term when referring to the atmosphere where birds and airplanes fly. In due course, God caused this atmospheric “heavens” to be filled with a mix of gases vital for life.Some translations use the word “firmament” instead of “expanse.” From this the argument is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths that represent this “firmament” as a metal dome. But even the King James Version Bible, which uses “firmament,” says in the margin, “expansion.” This is because the Hebrew word ra·qi´a', translated “expanse,” means to stretch out or spread out or expand.

    Hopefully, I can say this without getting too long-winded and bogged down in unnecessary detail: No doubt at that point in time the earth had ambient temperatures higher than what we experience today. Couple that with the fact that even to this day there are layers or bands within the atmosphere high above the earth’s surface that are very warm and you have ‘natural’ conditions which lend themselves to the formation and suspension of the water canopy. Surely the existence of such a canopy would have produced an antediluvian world drastically different from our own.

    Now let’s move on to Day Three. On Day Three by God’s miracle-working power the waters on the earth were brought together and dry land appeared and God calls the dry land Earth. Perhaps using forces similar to the geologic forces that are still moving the plates of the earth, God seems to have pushed ocean ridges up to form continents. No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. This would produce dry land above the surface and deep ocean valleys below. (Compare Psalm 104:6-9. Even though these verses are describing events associated with the Global Flood, they are also very descriptive of how God must have caused “dry land” to appear in the first place on Day Three.) Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by the Creator. Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth.

    In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his knowledge of the earth, a variety of developments concerning earth’s history are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their waves were limited by dry land—many things in general about the creation, spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a building, the Bible says that God asked Job: “Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?” (Job 38:6)

    Interestingly, like “socket pedestals,” earth’s crust is much thicker under continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. “The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be valid,” says Putnam’s Geology. Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice that far. And all earth’s layers press inward upon earth’s core from all directions, making it like a great “cornerstone” of support.

    After dry ground had been formed, another miraculous thing happened. It was also on this day that, through no chance factors or evolutionary processes, God acted to superimpose the life principle upon atoms of matter, so that grass, vegetation, and fruit bearing trees were brought into existence. Each of these three general divisions was capable of reproducing according to its “kind”.

    Photosynthesis is essential for plants. A green plant cell has a number of smaller parts called chloroplasts, which obtain energy from sunlight. “These microscopic factories”, explains the book Planet Earth, “manufacture sugars and starches . . . No human has ever designed a factory more efficient, or whose products are more in demand, than a chloroplast”.
     
  9. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    Indeed, later animal life would depend upon chloroplasts for survival. Also, without green vegetation, earth’s atmosphere would be overly rich in carbon dioxide, and we would die from heat and lack of oxygen. Some specialists give astonishing explanations for the development of life dependent on photosynthesis. For example, they say that when single-celled organisms in the water began to run out of food, “a few pioneering cells finally invented a solution. They arrived at photosynthesis.” But could that really be so? Photosynthesis is so complex that scientists are still attempting to unravel its secrets. Do you think that self-reproducing photosynthetic life arose inexplicably and spontaneously or based upon the inventiveness or “learning” of single-celled organisms? Or do you find it more reasonable to believe that it exists as a result of intelligent, purposeful creation, as Genesis reports?

    The appearance of new varieties of plant life may not have ended on the third creative “day.” It could even have been going on into the sixth “day,” when the Creator “planted a garden in Eden” and “made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one’s sight and good for food.” (Genesis 2:8, 9) By the end of the third day the gradual process begun on Day One with regard to Light had progressed to a point that the earth could now support a great variety of green plant life.

    Now let’s move on to Day Four. The expressed divine will concerning luminaries was accomplished on Day Four, it being stated: “Then God continued, saying, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night, and they shall be for signs and for seasons and for days and years. Also they shall be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth’; and gradually it came to be so. Accordingly God proceeded to make the two great lights, the greater light as a ruler of the day, and the lesser light as a ruler of the night, likewise the stars.” (Genesis 1:14-16, Watts) In view of the description of these luminaries, the greater luminary was quite apparently the sun and the lesser luminary the moon, though the sun and moon are not specifically named in the Bible until after its account of the Global Flood of Noah’s day. (Genesis 15:12; 37:9)

    Previously, on Day One, the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ´ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·´ohr´, which refers to a luminary or a source of light. (Genesis 1:14) Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohr´ in verse 14 means something “affording light.” So, on the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the source of that light could not have been seen from the earth’s surface. Now, on the fourth “day,” things evidently changed.

    It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba·ra´´, meaning “create,” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb `a·sah´, most often meaning “make” but also meaning simply to establish (2 Samuel 7:11), appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8), is here employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” or “appoint” these celestial bodies to occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put [another meaning of `a·sah´] them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways. Now, for the first time, more concentrated sunlight reached the surface of the earth and the sources of light—sun and moon and stars—could be seen from the surface of the earth.

    An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate or ‘greenhouse effect’. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life. (Psalm 136:7-9) Again we find events recorded in Genesis preceding in exactly the order that modern-day scientists theorize that they should.

    Now let’s move on to Day Five. On Day Five the Creator proceeded to fill the oceans and the atmospheric heavens with a new form of life distinct from vegetation, namely “living souls”. Interestingly, biologists also speak, among other things, of the plant kingdom and the animal kingdom, and they divide these into subclassifications. The Hebrew word translated “soul” means “a breather”. The Bible also says that “living souls” have blood. Therefore, we may conclude that creatures having both a respiratory system and a circulatory system—the breathing denizens of the seas and heavens—began to appear on Day Five. (Genesis 1:20; 9:3, 4) Not just one creature purposed by God to evolve into other forms, but literally swarms of living souls were then brought forth by divine power. It is stated: “And God said—Let the waters swarm with an abundance of living soul, and, birds, shall fly over the earth, over the face of the expanse of the heavens. And God created the great sea-monsters, —and every living soul that moveth—with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird—after its kind. And God saw that it was, good.” Pleased with what He had produced, God blessed them and, in effect, told them to “become many,” which was possible, for these creatures of many different family kinds were divinely endowed with the ability to reproduce “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:20-23, Rotherham)

    Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) So, does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

    First, we must ask, “Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion? Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier answers: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) And A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.

    So what does the fossil record actually show? The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

    A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

    Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

    Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

    Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.





     
  10. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    standing_on_one_foot



    Now let’s move on to Day Six. On Day Six, God gave more attention to the land. He created “domestic” animals and “wild” animals, these being meaningful designations when Moses penned the account. (Genesis 1:24) So it was in this sixth creative period that land mammals were formed. What, though, about humans?

    The ancient record tells us that eventually the Creator chose to produce a truly unique form of life on earth, superior to the animals even though lower than the angels. This was man, created in God’s image and after his likeness, not from a physical standpoint but rather from a spiritual standpoint. (Genesis 1:26) Man would therefore reflect the spiritual image of his Maker, displaying His qualities. And man would be capable of taking in huge amounts of knowledge. Thus, humans could act with an intelligence surpassing that of any animal. Also, unlike the animals, man was made with a capacity to act according to his own free will, not being controlled mainly by instinct.

    While Genesis 1:27 briefly states concerning humankind “male and female he [God] created them,” the parallel account at Genesis 2:7-9 shows that God formed man out of the dust of the ground, blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul, for whom a paradise home and food were provided. In this case God used the elements of the earth in creative work and then, having formed man, He created the female of humankind using one of Adam’s ribs as a base. (Genesis 2:18-25) With the creation of the woman, man was complete as a “kind.” (Genesis 5:1, 2)

    God then blessed mankind, telling the first man and his wife: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth.” (Genesis 1:28, Darby; compare Ps 8:4-8.) For humankind and other earthly creatures, God made adequate provision by giving them “all green vegetation for food.” Reporting on the results of such creative work, the inspired Record states: “After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Genesis 1:29-31) The sixth day having come to its successful conclusion and God having completed this creative work, “he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.” (Genesis 2:1-3)

    In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time.

    Concluding the review of accomplishments on each of the six days of creative activity is the statement, “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning,” a first, second, third day, and so forth. (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) Since the length of each creative day exceeded 24 hours (as will be discussed shortly), this expression does not apply to literal night and day but is figurative. During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. During the “evening,” or beginning, of each creative period, or “day,” God’s purpose for that day, though fully known to him, would be indistinct to any angelic observers. However, when the “morning” arrived there would be full light as to what God had purposed for that day, it having been accomplished by that time. (Compare Proverbs 4:18)

    Length of Creative Days.

    The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Genesis 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Genesis 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore be zealous and exert ourselves and strive diligently to enter that rest”. By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the sabbath” (Matthew 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God’s rest day. (Revelation 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.

    That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2 Peter 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself.
     
  11. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    standing_on_one_foot



    Truth of Creation Vindicated

    The fact of creation is clearly stated in the Bible. It is in harmony with scientific evidence found in astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology and biology. From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory. Also, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the appearance of life on earth to the “spontaneous generation” of living organisms from inanimate chemicals.

    The theory of evolution is directly contrary to the Bible. It has failed to give a satisfactory explanation of the demonstrable facts of paleontology and biology.

    The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The chances are the same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from a knowledgeable source somewhere is not realistic.

    The Bible does not set the time of creation of “the heavens and the earth.” The Bible does not support the creationists’ position on this and their theories conflict with the facts of astronomy, physics and geology.

    The Christian’s faith in the Genesis account of creation stands firm, unperturbed by current religious-scientific squabbles. That faith is based on the “evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1) Above all, it is backed by the testimony of Jesus Christ: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4) Further, in the revelation, which God gave to Jesus, we read: “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” (Revelation 4:11; 1:1)





     
  12. meogi

    meogi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,010
    Ratings:
    +110
    Ugh, mental note: Use a text editor to write long posts first. I'm not re-writing this again.

    Phew, this will be fun. First off, let me say that my use of the english language is a bit shoddy at best, and as such, I'm not always able to express my thoughts as thoroughly as I would like. If anything confuses you, quote it, and I will try to explain it in easier/better terms. I do my best to do that all the time though.

    No, it is not a science book. Nothing in the bible should be taken as scientific. There's a process for science, the first, and most important, one being observation. If the bible is "correct" (it can't be, btw, it doesn't go indepth enough to actually explain something) on any scientific observation, all it does is support that scientific observation. In no way does it support a 'divinely written' book (there has to be something support).

    Historically, yes, some of the events depicted in the bible happened. It certainly has not established itself as 'the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' although. So everything is up for scrutiny, which is why we're here!

    There's a few major discrepencies in the bible that are too large to ignore though. The main one being the existance of a man named Moses. No evidence of him ever existing. Nothing except the bible. No evidence of a bunch of Jews, origionating in Egypt and wandering around a desert for 40 years. Zero. This kinda hurts the 'divine' aspect of the Pentateuch. This asside, the 'scientific' explanations you give can be interpreted differently.

    The in writing part would be the 'book of knowledge' or whatever that book with your life in it is. "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;" - God knows what you're going to look like. He writes it in that book, and then you grow into what you are. This doesn't show anything about genetics... with an open mind, it at most shows that people of the time knew that there were differing stages in an embryo's development.

    No need to quote the bible here, you're right. The chapter also explains how you shouldn't eat... just about everything. But that doesn't matter. Wow, the knowledge that a rabbit eats it's own crap is quite a recent scientific observation. They never would have seen that back then, god had to tell them...

    First off, genesis doesn't give any explanation into the origin of any of those. It says god just 'formed' them. Second, the order is nothing 'special.' They are a logical order, water -> land -> animals on land. Even people 2000 years ago could understand and determine that. Even the 10 steps you list later are logical orders (order is debatable to an extent). Beginning -> nothing(dark) -> something(light) -> (not sure about separation of earth/heaven stuff) -> plants -> animals -> man. The first 3 are man made concepts, with a logical progression. The last 3 were observed (man has always had to hunt, so animals had to come either before, or at the same time), and are arguable. Hell, I'm losing myself in this, but you also state the thing about odds of randomly picking the order is 1:(10!). Fine, but they didn't pick the order randomly, there are only 4 (maybe 5) or so that would have been 'randomly picked.' (I quote because you can still 'place' things where you'd think they'd best fit). This lowers the number dramatically, either 1:24, or 1:120, depending on how many random items you have. With an open mind:

    K, medicine was known about at the time of the writing of the bible. They're gonna put in the stuff that works, and more than likely leave out the stuff that doesn't. But that (the stuff left out) doesn't help your argument any, absence of anything doesn't help show anything.

    I'm gonna post this, and continue addressing your points tomorrow. Oyasuminasai.

     
  13. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    meogi

    You start off saying: “No, it is not a science book. Nothing in the bible should be taken as scientific. There's a process for science, the first, and most important, one being observation. If the bible is "correct" (it can't be, btw, it doesn't go indepth enough to actually explain something) on any scientific observation, all it does is support that scientific observation. In no way does it support a 'divinely written' book (there has to be something support)."

    An in-depth explanation of scientific things is not what the Bible is about. Expecting the Bible to be something that it is not is very unrealistic, unfair and will get you nowhere in understanding what the Bible does say and in understanding what the Bible IS. You express several opinions but provide no proof of what you say and claim. Also, standing up “straw men” does not make for a good argument. I have already stated repeatedly that the Bible is not a science textbook, so why are you making an issue of the fact that the Bible is not a science textbook? Get my drift?

    But since you opened the door, if “observation” is the first and foremost requirement to something being “science”, then by your own standards, the “theory of evolution”, as well as other areas of “science”, just entered the realm of science fiction.

    Science sometimes makes statements of “fact” without the presence of direct proof or observation. For example, several scientists believed and stated categorically that Pluto was there long before it was finally discovered. Even today astronomers will state categorically that a distant star has a solar system around it even though they cannot actually observe the planets. Why? It is because they can observe the wobble in its orbit. In other words, there are many things in this world that are “facts” but that are not supported by direct proof or observation. Again, standing up a straw man is not good argumentation. Just because you choose to set unreasonable and artificially high standards for the Bible to meet does not mean the Bible does not have merit and should not be believed or that I, or anyone else for that matter, should adopt your unreasonable standards.

    “A fabrication” was the claim of Bible critics for many years regarding Belshazzar (follow link and scroll down to —Critical View:). All those Bible critics were wrong and the Bible was right! Time will tell whether or not "proof" of Moses’ existence will be discovered. The Bible is full of names and references that appear nowhere else. So what? What does that prove? What does that disprove? If scientists can believe in things they cannot directly prove, so can I. So what? Can you disprove the existence of Moses? Some make a similar claim regarding Jesus. I respectfully submit to you that the proof of the existence of Moses and Jesus is in the after effect or the result of their lives and actions, not in the existence of extra-biblical proof. To me that proof (my proof) is just as sound and as acceptable as a "wobbly orbit" is to those scientists. Can I disapprove the existence of planets around those distant stars? Absolutely not! Neither can you disprove the existence of Moses and Jesus. Don't misunderstand me; you are very much entitled to your opinion, but your strongly held opinion amounts to no "proof" of anything that all, just another straw man.

    Here is one of my favorite renderings of Psalm 139:13-16:
    "For it was you that built my vitals,
    were weaving me together in my mother's body.
    I acclaim you that you are fearfully mysterious;
    mysterious are your works, and my soul who knows it well.
    My bones were not unknown to you
    as I was made in secret,
    stitched in an underground place.
    Your eyes saw my germs,
    and they were all registered in your book;
    Many days they were shaped,
    and not one of them was lost.

    Finally, a real argument, your "interpretation" of the above verses is not an uncommon one among those who believe in predestination. I do not, but let’s not veer off into that discussion. Instead, I will concede to you that David knew nothing about DNA and genetics. However, the One inspiring David to write those words did. And that is why those metaphorical and poetic words convey an idea that agrees with what we now know to be scientifically correct.
     
  14. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8


    meogi

    Animal life:

    Yes, I am right. Again, the point is that scientists and Bible critics had pointed to those words about the hare and had claimed that it was a "mistake". Not until the 20th century did science discover its mistake. The Bible was right all along.

    Medicine:
    Direct quote: “But that doesn't matter.” Again you are wrong, it does matter. The dietary restrictions and sanitation requirements of the law code reveal knowledge of what we now call science that was well beyond the human knowledge that we find recorded in any other ancient document from 3500 years ago.

    Geology:
    Here we go again, another straw man. Here is what I said (a direct quote from above):

    "With the basic point established that the Bible text does not conflict with scientific theories about the age of the universe, we may also leave open the question of the age and origin of geologic strata. The Bible says nothing at all about the formation of sedimentary layers, whether at the time of the Flood or earlier. All the voluminous writings of creationists on this subject have been motivated by the desire to reconcile the existence of the geologic column and its fossils, dinosaurs and all, with their claim for a 6- to 10-thousand-year age of the earth. If this claim is invalid, all the rest of the argument is beside the point."

    Here is what one of America’s leading geologists,Wallace Pratt, said about the Bible: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” This geologist also noted that the order of events—from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals—is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.—The Lamp, “The Worlds of Wallace Pratt,” by W. L. Copithorne, Fall 1971, Vol. 53, No. 3., p. 14.

    Again, I did not say that, a scientist said that. Where is your proof that his statement is not correct? Where are your quotations from ancient documents showing all this knowledge you claim was floating around 3500 years ago? You are assuming things to be true of those people that could only be true of people from our time. If I am wrong in this, show me the proof!

    And here we go again, one more time, another straw man. You say: “K, medicine was known about at the time of the writing of the bible. They're gonna put in the stuff that works, and more than likely leave out the stuff that doesn't. But that (the stuff left out) doesn't help your argument any, absence of anything doesn't help show anything.”

    Excuuusse meee! Now you're trying to argue with me about something I didn't say; the stuff you claim I left out. What planet are you from anyway?

    The most “advanced” civilization of that time period was Egypt. One of the oldest medical texts available is the Ebers Papyrus, a compilation of Egyptian medical knowledge, dating from about 1550 B.C.E., or about 3500 years ago. It contains approximately 700 remedies for various afflictions, “ranging from crocodile bite to toenail pain.” Most of the remedies were merely ineffective, but some of them were extremely dangerous. For the treatment of a wound, one of the prescriptions recommended applying a mixture of human excrement combined with other substances. I bet that “stuff” “worked”, don’t you? But there it is, in writing and not “left out”. Oh, I forgot. That is not from the Bible it is from the most advanced “civilization” of that period. Obviously, those ancient Egyptian physicians did not fully understand how disease spreads, nor did they realize the importance of sanitation in preventing sickness. But that is not the case with the Bible.

    In his book The Physician Examines the Bible, C. Raimer Smith wrote: “It is very surprising to me that the Bible is so accurate from the medical standpoint. . . . Where treatment is mentioned, as for boils, wounds, etc., it is correct even by modern standards. . . . Many superstitions are still believed by large numbers of people such as, that a buckeye in the pocket will prevent rheumatism; that handling toads will cause warts; that wearing red flannel around the neck will cure a sore throat; that an asafetida bag will prevent diseases; that every time a child is sick it has worms; etc., but no such statements are found in the Bible. This in itself is remarkable and to me is another proof of its divine origin.”

    Where is your proof that “stuff” was left out of the Bible? Where is your proof that “stuff” was left out of my arguments?

    Direct quote from you: "absence of anything doesn't help show anything." The only absence in this discussion is the absence of proof of any kind for any of your OPINIONS. Surely you can do better than that.


    Just in case you don’t know:
    straw man (stro man)n. 1. A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise. 2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. 3. A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow.[1]


    [1]Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary. Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
     
  15. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    HOGCALLER-- Many posts ago, ;) you talked about science and its credibility. However, I noticed that all of your examples were ones where science was actually not being carried out. For example, alchemy was never good science--good observation, testing, and exposing the frauds who claimed to be able to perform alchemy were the tools that finally exposed it for the myth that it was. In other words, science proved alchemy wrong, not the other way around.

    The same is true for the various articles you listed. A few of them even discussed studies that reveal unobjective, unscientific goings on among people who work in scientific fields. Those were scientific studies that revealed these truths to us, were they not? It wasn't prayer or magical charms or reading the Bible that exposed these things, right?

    My point is that science is only a poor method of figuring things out when science is being practiced poorly and unobjectively. I for one am comforted by the fact that scientists so tenaciously research the biases and paradigms of others working in medical research and so forth.

    You also said that your Encyclopedia's article on the history of science did not begin with Galileo...that's okay. I don't mind disagreeing with your Encyclopedia that modern science came into existence before the time of Gelileo :) You can talk about Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe, for example, if you want, and try to construe it as a failure of science. It was scientific observation, and not some revelation in the understanding of scriptures, that lead us to a more accurate understanding of nature.

    Finally, you talk about allowing for errors in the translation of the Bible. If by "allow for errors" you mean "reinterpret the Bible every time scientific evidence contradicts the old interpretation" then you are not alone--Hindus, Muslims, and many other cultures and religions do the exact same thing. In order to be truly objective, though, we also need to allow for the possibility that Genesis is just like any other mythological creation story, and not the One True words of God. Then we can explain how it fits with the scientific evidence much more easily and without all the frustration of trying to make a square peg fit into a circular hole.
     
  16. meogi

    meogi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,010
    Ratings:
    +110
    I hate jumping into topics so late in the game, just the sheer amount of stuff to cover sucks sometimes.
    Well, here's something you've said that goes off absences of evidence:
    Also, my statement on the "stuff" left out was about the "supersticious stuff" you say isn't in the bible. So, that can't be used to help your cause. I'll say it again, absence of anything doesn't help show anything.


    With regard to the planets thing, no, we can't see some of the planets. But based on what our solar system does, we can make a theory on what happens in other solar systems. That's what a theory does, it's used to explain and predict. It's not an end all argument, but it is scientific. Using the bible to explain god, and saying science backs it up is not scientific. No one has ever observed a god, nothing like that has ever happened. Creationists go off the fact that the bible is correct, and that's one big assumption... but I'll let it slide, as that's what we're debating here.

    I'm just curious which of the dead sea scrolls/others backs this up?


    As to the rabit, I wasn't aware that the topic was debated so long ago. Forgive me.

    And for William Pratt, I wasn't questioning his statement, yes, it does seem unlikely for that to happen, but unlikely does not show impossibility. The cacluation is wrong too (just remembered this overnight). 1:(10!) includes repetitions in numbers for one thing. E.G - you can have 1, 10 times as the order. Or five of 3 and five of 8, etc. If I had my discreet math book with me, I could give you an accurate number, because I don't remember the formula atm.

    That brings me to my next question for you: Do you have any quotes or support from anyone in the 20th/21st century? EVERY SINGLE quote you've done is from 1989 or earlier. Did people just stop caring in 1990? This is just a question, it's not ment to support/hinder any arguments.

    Like I said (perhaps in another other thread), it's logically impossible to disprove a negative. I'm not trying to disprove god/creationism... I'm trying to show why it isn't science.


    and blarg, i dont like this wysiwyg stuff... i want one font, and one font only!

    more to come
     
  17. meogi

    meogi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,010
    Ratings:
    +110
    Yep, that's how I like to argue things. point by point. I hate jumping around, and I'll say it again, that I regret comming into this so far into it, because now that I've said something, i'm gonna have to back it up when you say something about it, and at the same time address other points... gah!:bonk:

    I don't mean to attack anyone as well, if I ever do, slap me. But about the bible, lets assume for a minute that it was written by man, without influence of a 'divine spirit'. What happens? It becomes a book, with some historically correct facts, about why we're here. It would become nothing better than The Adventures of Huck Finn or any other story that, while based in an existing time, has nothing to back up the existance of the main character/s. I can just see people 2000 years from now, thinking huck finn was an actual person, and searching for his 'house' or 'raft' much like christians do with the ark and such now :D


    The evolutionary theory does have some sub-theories that are still up for debate. Thats the good thing about science though, if it's shown wrong, or better yet, a better explanation is given, then the old is discarded and the new takes foot. Just because a 'sub-theory' of a theory is shown incorrect does not destroy the foundation for wthich the origional theroy stands on. Evolution has it's own major points that hold true and support it. Things like natrual selection and genetics (micro-evolution). The things that are part of it, but not supported full yet are things like macro-evolution (e.g. - fish turning into land animals). But we are discovering new things every year that help support it (one recently would be an ape skeleton in china that helps bridge the gap there).


    But I think you're saying that because these sub-theories might be discarded that the whole system fails? That's not how science works. I think this comes from the belief that if a major problem is found in the bible, that the whole thing collapses... if it happens in science, a new explanation almost always takes it's place.

    I'd like to know what this fact of creation is. As far as I know, no one knows if we/the universe were created, as we're here having this discussion now, arn't we?


    And what demonstratable facts are those? the macro-evolution stuff? it's still being worked on. Biology is explained fine under micro-evolution as well... unless you're talking about a different biology.


    what else, what else...
     
  18. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    OK GUYS, READ MY LIPS: THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK! I AM NOT PRESENTING IT AS SUCH OR CLAIMING THAT WHAT IT SAYS IS “SCIENCE”. OK—GOT IT?



    What I have consistently said is: the Bible and the “true facts” of science do not conflict. Just as NOT EVERYTHING that has been purported to be science in the last 3500 years has actually been “true facts” of science (or you can read “nature”, etc. if you prefer), so, also, not everything that has purported to be from the Bible has actually been the “truth” of what the Bible actually says. Both of those situations arise from man's imperfection and not from failures or deficiencies of the "true facts" of science or the Bible. If you cannot see and accept that simple statement of truth and fact, then all of this is a humongous waste of time.



    The "true facts" of science have not change in the last 3500 years, have they? Is the reason we have new science textbooks every few years that the “true facts” of science have actually changed? Or is it a case of well-meaning men making, at times, some very serious “scientific misinterpretations”? Why shouldn't I blame science and scientists for that? Why shouldn't I have serious doubts about all scientists and all "scientific facts" because of those past “misinterpretations”? The standards many apply to the Bible are not consistent with the standards they apply to their own “religion” of choice. Consider, even today, is it not the case that many of the claims of science actually have to be accepted on “faith” because there are no demonstrable facts to support them? Again, I ask you have the actual “true facts” of science changed in the last 3500 years? What has changed? Only man's “interpretation” of those facts has changed. And there have been far more (in total number) “misinterpretations” of the "true facts" of science than there have been "misinterpretations" of the Bible. Scientists, by comparison, have rushed from error to error with much more abandon than have the believers of the Bible. My point is: your “religion” is just as faulty and is much more likely to change than is the so-called “religion” of those church leaders that claimed the Bible said that the earth was the center of the universe. FYI: that belief was imported into the church right along with other “pagan” beliefs such as a triune god, immortality of the soul and the resultant doctrines regarding the afterlife.



    The portion of the Bible that we are discussing was written 3500 years ago. Other than for having to be translated into modern languages it is virtually the same as it was when it was written. In other words, just as the "true facts" of science have not actually changed in the last 3500 years the truths stated in the Bible have not actually changed. However, the “interpretations” of mistaken, but well-meaning men have changed. If I should cut science and scientists some slack in spite of the "misinterpretations" of the past, why shouldn't you also return the favor? The answer is: some of you suffer from a prejudice and bigotry against the Bible that would be called racism were it directed against people of a different color. Well, maybe that is a bit strong; but it is accurate and fair to say that, at the very least, that there are many minds that narrow or closed when the subject is the Bible.



    OK, Mr_Spinkles,



    The three examples of faulty science that I mentioned before were from after the time of Galileo. If alchemy and spontaneous generation should not be counted against science then neither should the misinterpretations, in actuality, the non-biblical or extra-biblical beliefs, purported to be from the Bible, be counted against it. Just as science eventually proves the actual facts and disproves the misinterpretations, so it is with the Bible. Just as it is with science that some things can only be proven by the passage of a great deal of time, so it is with the Bible. All I ask is that you use the same scales to weigh the Bible as you do to weigh science.



    Here are a few additional items to add to my list: steady state universe theory, oscillating universe theory. In time I will find or remember others. However, how many I do or don't find is beside the point. The point is what I stated above. The nature of man is the nature of man and it has not changed in 3500 years. The reason I mentioned alchemy, was what? The problem with scientists is they are human. The problem with the religionist is they are human. Just as scientists sometimes must be dragged, screaming and hollering the whole way, to accept new ideas and to admit old mistakes, so it is with the religionist. It is part of the make-up of man to resist change and to avoid admitting mistakes. But those failings of the scientists and the religionist do not constitute a failure of science or the Bible.



    As I have already mentioned in one of my other posts much of science is not based on directly observable and demonstrable fact but rather is based on the observation of the results or after effects observed. We all believe in things we cannot see or directly observe. Why? It is because we can see the results or the after effects that are observable.



    I realize this is getting to be a lengthy the thread and I certainly do not know how much of it you have or have not read. But is it really your opinion that I am arguing in favor of ever changing "reinterpretations"? If that is your opinion, please point out to me what I said that made you think so. I will have to change what or how I am saying things, because that is not what I believe. Just in case you are unclear about it, belief in the Bible DOES NOT preclude belief in science, at least most of it and vise versa.



    You say: “In order to be truly objective, though, we also need to allow for the possibility that Genesis is just like any other mythological creation story, and not the One True words of God. Then we can explain how it fits with the scientific evidence much more easily and without all the frustration of trying to make a square peg fit into a circular hole.”



    I agree and disagree with the above statement. First, the disagreement, Genesis is not "just like any other mythological creation story". I have read some of them, though not all, and there is no comparison. I would encourage anyone reading this who believes that statement is true to do the same. When I have time I will post links to some.



    Second, we do need "to be truly objective". (ob·jec·tive (…b-jµk“t¹v) adj. 1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. 3.a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair.b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.) Therefore, I pledge to consider, Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices, all fair arguments that are Based on observable phenomena, presentedfactually. I will even accept after effects or results as proofs as long as you, too, will.



    Now, will someone, please, show me where and how the godless atheistic/evolutionary "mythological creation story" is in any way superior to the Bible's account. Please, will someone "explain how it fits with the scientific evidence much more easily and without all the frustration of trying to make a square peg fit into a circular hole".



    “Every house has a builder, the Builder of all things being God.”—Hebrews 3:4, Weymouth. To convince me that I should not believe in God and in the Biblical creation account all you have to do is to convince me that the above statement, especially the first part, is not a statement of demonstrable fact. If everything we know and can demonstrate “scientifically” or otherwise all supports the validly of the first statement, then the second statement must follow. If that first statement can be disproved then the second will fall of its own unsupported weight.



    Let's not waste a lot of time. For the sake of expediency and to maintain some semblance of logical progression we should first prove or disprove the statement, "every house has a builder". We should establish that the demonstrable “facts” of known science do or do not require that a simple house must have a builder, and then we will know whether or not we need to move on to a discussion of who or what that Builder might be. In other words, all you devout atheist will have the opportunity to tout your religion in due time, so please be patient.
     
  19. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,018
    Religion:
    Judaism
    According to whom? Based on what evidence? Why on earth would you believe, much less promulgate, such a myth?
     
  20. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059

    Deut is right! There are no original autographs - The best that literary analysis can do is verify the everything from the first copies found is accurate and those were produced well after it was thought that the original was written.

    -pah-
     
Loading...