There is nothing in verse 6 or 7 to imply that the earth was a solid ball of water. To me these are simply talking about the establishment of the water cycle (formation of water in the troposphere) which did occur exactly before the establishment of land masses described in verse 9. Again, I don't see how this does not match the scientific record.
One last comment: if you do read some of the other creation accounts, I can almost guarantee you that you will be astonished with the Genesis account. It reads much like a simple log book or journal whereas the ones I have read are very mythological in nature. But, again, I'm not saying I've read every creation story on the planet...
"This is not necessarily true and is what I was trying to explain to GG. If the other universes are universes that are governed by the same laws of physics (and if we don't assume this then we're into science fiction) but with modified parameters, then noone knows what will result." True. "It is entirely possible that our universe is the only universe capable of bearing life assuming the same laws of physics. Noone knows. Perhaps no other set of parameters would allow information storage? We don't understand well enough the first 10 -35 seconds, mstrings, etc. and the subsequent fallout to subatomic particles to even begin to guess at this." I agree that it's *possible* that this is the only combination, but that doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's *possible* that I'm god, so what. "And that leads to my next point. Appealing to alternate universes is doing to a theist the very thing that you hate most. Skeptics have long complained that Christians, when backed into a corner with an argument, will try to escape with, "Well, I admit this is paradoxical, but I believe it by faith. It must come from the spiritual realm." I disagree. I did not state that anything is paradoxical and did not rely on faith for any part of my argument. The alternative universes were only used as an example to make my point clearer. I do not have to appeal to them at all to make the same point. "Imo this is exactly what you guys are sounding like. The universe looks designed, sounds designed, smells designed and your response is "Well, I admit this is paradoxical, but I believe it by faith. I can explain this by appealing to alternate universes."" I don't really claim it looks designed, but I understand how people come to that conclusion. I use the word "designed" sometimes in quotes so that people know I have a different meaning for it. (Imagine me holding two fingers like quotes up in the air with each hand, and saying "designed" as I wiggle them ) I dont' see anything paradoxical here and do not appeal to faith. "Is it too much to ask that we talk about the evidence contained within the only universe that we actually know about and not speculate about something that is, for the time being, one step away from science fiction?" Not at all. I'll put it another way. Simply put, it is NOT amazing by any means that the life which exists in THIS universe, with THIS precise combination of factors, thrives in the VERY universe it exists in. It HAS to be that way. Simple as that. Any entity that DOESN'T have synergistic attributes wouldn't even be here You are looking at it backwards. You see this complex entity, and notice that if any of these 50+ variables were changed, then THIS complex entity could not thrive in this universe. But this is the VERY universe this complex entity came to be in, SO OF COURSE it has attributes which are synergistic with these 50+ variables which allow it to thrive. Entities with attributes that do NOT allow them to thrive in THIS universe with these 50+ variables, AREN'T HERE, and for good reason It sounds like you are saying that its an amazing coincidence that the entities which this universe ALLOWED to exist by effectively removing all entities which do NOT have synergistic qualities, ACTUALLY THRIVE IN THIS UNIVERSE, and that this somehow implies an intelligent creator. There is nothing amazing about it. This in no way implies an intelligent creator. Consider this hypothetical situation: Imagine I have magical god like powers. I decide to snap my fingers and create a brand new alien being that can only breathe pure hydrogen here on earth. What would happen? It would immediately suffocate and DIE and cease to exist I then decide to try again with a new kind of alien. It immediately dies and ceases to exist. After 50 million tries of trial and error, I create a new alien that can finally live ok on earth. (Sound familiar? ) Does this "automatic process" which kills these incompatible aliens in any way imply an intelligent creator? No. This points to the simple fact that the only entities which can thrive in THIS universe, ARE the entities with synergistic attributes to the 50+ variables which this universe already has. This "filtration process" is what people seem to mistaken as some kind of intelligence. But no intelligent creator is required for this to occur. Stating that if one of these 50+ variables changed, it would make it impossible for us to live in this universe, doesn't tell us much at all. My response is basically, yeah, no kidding. peace axeman
" Many people on et like to slam anything theistic and I am just pointing out that their arguments are often based on fear and prejudice..." I am certain this is true of some people and even some atheists who are atheists for the wrong reasons. But I assure you, this is not the case with me My position is born out of years of theological debate and study. I was once a theist, and as my knowledge grew, I was forced to rid myself of theology as I was unable to defend my position against any well educated atheist. To put it mildly, I was CREAMED in debates I finally came around. It's a long hard process. This stuff get's ingrained in you at a very young age and is sometimes nearly impossible to rid yourself of it. It took me many years to finally get rid of all traces and effects. I also had a hard time being aware of the fact that my beliefs were opposite of our greatest scientists. 97% non-theists in our National Academy of Scientists. Our best and brightest tend to be non-believers and this trend continues towards 100% over the years. One day, I took a big step back, looked at the big picture, and realized, the king had no clothes. peace axeman
Sure there is. Since dry land did not appear until verse 1:9, and since the water cycle did not exist until verse 7, there could not have been any land at all, including wet land, since we need an atmosphere for there to be rain. This only leaves us with the possibility of dry land which only is created in verse 9. Therefore, there had to be NO land in verse 6, only ocean. (But without an atmosphere). THEN the atmosphere was created. And THEN the land was created All wrong. peace axeman ---------------------------------- Genesis 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day. Are we to believe here that the earth was a solid ball of water with no atmosphere at one point? Genesis 1:9 - And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Here are we to believe that land only appeared after there was nothing but water? My science references claim the earth was molten at one time which would lead me to believe that at best we had water vapor present. As the earth cooled enough, then it was possible for water to collect.
************************************************** Imagine I have magical god like powers. I decide to snap my fingers and create a brand new alien being that can only breathe pure hydrogen here on earth. What would happen? It would immediately suffocate and DIE and cease to exist I then decide to try again with a new kind of alien. It immediately dies and ceases to exist. After 50 million tries of trial and error, I create a new alien that can finally live ok on earth. (Sound familiar? ) Does this "automatic process" which kills these incompatible aliens in any way imply an intelligent creator? No. ************************************************** I get a little better where you're coming from now. I believe one thing you're saying is that if evolution is true, it is not remarkable that advanced life exists here on earth and I agree with that logic because there would be a built in mechanism for self-transformation. *************************************************** Simply put, it is NOT amazing by any means that the life which exists in THIS universe, with THIS precise combination of factors, thrives in the VERY universe it exists in. It HAS to be that way. *************************************************** I disagree, it does not have to be that way. If just one of those parameters I mentioned were tweaked slightly, there would be NO life in the universe anywhere. And now we're getting to William Paley! If one discovers an operational and functional watch that is intricately put together and appears to be designed (and, yes, I am picturing your fingers displaying frantic quoting movements), can one assume a watchmaker? You know what I say...
************************************************** But this is the VERY universe this complex entity came to be in, SO OF COURSE it has attributes which are synergistic with these 50+ variables which allow it to thrive. ************************************************** I think I'm finally understanding even better where we're differing. I am essentially saying that there is only one set of parameters that will produce life. I think that you are picturing many allowable sets of parameters for producing life. My understanding of the Intelligent Design arguments is that this would not be so, that is that these parameters are "untweakable". But I am hoping to go to a regional Intelligent Design conference on Wednesday. That's a very intersting question that I'll have to bring up.
I said:"Simply put, it is NOT amazing by any means that the life which exists in THIS universe, with THIS precise combination of factors, thrives in the VERY universe it exists in. It HAS to be that way." You said: "I disagree, it does not have to be that way. If just one of those parameters I mentioned were tweaked slightly, there would be NO life in the universe anywhere. " Now who is talking about alternative universes? You are making a contextual error. Notice that I said in "THIS" universe it HAS to be that way. Then you state no it doesn't while switching contexts to a universe with "slightly different parameters" which would PREVENT the very life we are discussing. In this "slightly tweaked" universe (alternative universe) which cannot support OUR kind of life, the very same rule applies. A different kind of life with synergistic attributes for THAT slightly different universe, would exist, or no life at all. In all three cases, my logic holds. peace axeman
" My understanding of the Intelligent Design arguments is that this would not be so, that is that these parameters are "untweakable". " If they are claiming they are untweakable because this would prevent OUR kind of life, then I agree. This is obvious. No miracles here. Otherwise, I would have to ask by whose authority are they untweakable? For what reason? "But I am hoping to go to a regional Intelligent Design conference on Wednesday. That's a very intersting question that I'll have to bring up. " Again... my question would be: Why is it that life existing with synergistic attributes for the very universe it exists in,(with a certain set of variables), in any way implies an intelligent creator, when we know, that any entity that DOESN'T have synergistic attributes would immediately perish? (See previous alien example). I just don't see anything intelligent about this obvious mechanism at all, and certainly no evidence of an intelligent creator. peace axeman