You may have a point there aphex, the theists viewpoint does seem mainly ego driven when one reads some of their posts. I've learned over the past year or so who among the ET family is genuinely interested in clean, mind expanding chit-chat and who is trying to wave their dick around saying, "hey, look at me! I'm so smart and clever!" So in the interests of informative discussion how does that contribute? Why even be pretentious about it? We can all agree that, in the grand scheme of things, none of us have the full answer. Why not try to pool our collective intelligence and actually work the problem and learn new things instead of the blatant displays of egocentric debating? Go ahead then. I thought alfonso was about to but he suddenly went very quiet. I really appreciate shoeshine's posts. I may not agree with everything he says, but I'm definitely open to learning something I didn't know previously from another man's different perspective. So ok, here are you saying you are biased towards a more unsuportable, incoherent, innacurate, misconcieved type of post. Again how will that promote informative discussion about the subject ? I propose that we stop the personal insults and have a nice, light-hearted discussion about religion. Is that possible? You want to be light hearted about a subject many people see being put forward as an absurdity.? How would that encourage informative discussion?
shoeshineboy, Here you are acknowledging physicists using science in an attempt to find truth. Let's do that and let's cover some items in a search for truth..... Starting with this.... (1:1) Bereishit bara Elokim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz. In the begining God created the heavens and the earth I presume you accept the Hebrew for Heavens and Earth in this verse is not "shamayan erets" However this verse appears to be more important now not later, as I see your response as a non answer. By this verse of Genesis you are either saying (1)God made everything in one go and at one time flash./ Snap -OR- (2) God made everything...over time - 6 days exactly âOR- (3) between 6 days and billions of years.-OR- (4) billions of years If (1), it is against all scientific knowledge and the proposition 'Genesis matches science' fails, as time (billions of years) is involved, then stars forming first, then - from stars - planets form much later. Not everything at once. You simply donât get from nothing to Earth in one flash. If (2) is the case , that is also against all scientific knowledge and the proposition 'Genesis matches science' fails again. If some things took days others billions of years(3) then Genesis rambles into an abstractness which alfonso favors, but will fail to match scientific record which you would have it do.. If it took God billions of years(4), there is a big problem with the order of things in Genesis, for instance planet earth and light upon it is created before the sun..and moon.etc All this would leave your following two pages 61/62/63 of responses in an overriding fog of contradiction.
I have seen no evidence by science which supports "an atmosphere with intense interplanetary debris" Science suggests Solar winds (not a lunar event! Whatâs a lunar event?? ) are thought to have probably blown away an early or 'primitive' atmosphere (Tauri phase). This "atmosphere" was consisting of only Hydogen and Helium.. But both are colorless gases. Any planetary debris you refer to, struck earth (keeping it hot). it did not maintain orbit around it. Anyway, thereafter, our earth had a primitive atmosphere probably high in carbon dioxide, etc. and some interplanetary debris Did it? Is that something you know for certain? I think not, and there is no evidence I am aware of or that I know Science is aware of, that there was such a thing.. There is evidence that the early atmosphere proper was formed by volcanic activity. But are you suggesting that the planet earth was completely and continuously covered in a thick layer of volcanic dust? If you are, there is no evidence of that. Where would the erosion be to create sedimentary dust for blowing out of a volcano at these times come from? BTW carbon dioxide is a colorless gas There also was already quite a bit of water on the ground as I mentioned in a previous post from asteroidal collusion which are full of water. Science believes that is actually where most of the water on earth came from.And, again, notice in verse two (which is before the verse 3 that you are referencing above), it says "the Spirit hovered over the waters." No actually Science believes no such thing . Science says it came from volcanoes out gassing. There was no water on the ground.. The principle gases/constituents of volcanos were and are Water vapor ((H2O) at about 80% and any Carbon dioxide (CO2) content is a colorless gas anyway. I am confused as to what "asteroidal collusion" might be or might mean , or how it could provide enough water for Genesis to make sense. Is this how you make Science fit Genesis . You re-write Science and invent new ideas of "asteroidal collusion" to suit Genesis?? So, yes, in a sense I should not use the word atmosphere because it implies an atmosphere like we have on earth. However, in the astronomical sense, the earth did have a primitive atmosphere when it was opaque (meaning of course letting virtually no light in). No it did not, there is nothing that is known of which was opaque and which stopped the sun reaching earth. So I hate to be overly agreeable, but we're both right. It didn't have an atmosphere like our atmosphere of today, but it did have enough carbon dioxide and other interplanetary debris to block the sun. And of course as this cleared up it would have allowed light onto the surface which is what verse 3 is saying if we take from the standpoint of an observer on the earth No we are not both right and you repeating this stuff will not make you right !. Carbon dioxide is a colorless gas there was little of it and this "interplanetary debris" was hitting earth keeping it hot , not orbiting it .. You need a thick layer of planetesimals orbiting over the whole surface of earth to do what you are asserting. There is no evidence from science to suggest anything like that caused sun light to stop reaching earth.. No evidence shows that . This is all fabricated nonsense. Do you think you can just make anything you want fit with anything you want it to , because it involves the name of God?
It does not help one bit,. it makes little sense. I would remind you the topic here is a stable water cycle.! (1:7) Vaya'as Elokim et-harakia vayavdel bein hamayim asher mitachat larakia uvein hamayim asher me'al larakia vayehi-chen. God made the canopy, and divided the waters which were beneath the canopy, from the waters which were above the canopy, and it was so. (1:8) Vayikra Elokim la-rakia shamayim vayehi-erev vayehi-voker yom sheni. God called the canopy heaven. The canopy is a sheet AND the canopy is the heavens?? All you seem to be doing is loosely re interpreting to form the idea that there is water on the earth and God now separates it into the clouds. Then why doesn't Genesis say that ?. There are five Hebrew words for clouds in the Bible. av, shachaq, chaziyz for clouds in the sky and . Shachaq means ââ¦to a fine powderâ (as mist) . Av expresses the idea of a thick covering of cloud.. You have just stated the firmament went no further than the clouds, but this only supports a notion that water went out into space, unless the stars and sun were at cloud level as Genesis states the sun moon and stars are in the same firmament !! The evidence suggests the ancient writers of Genesis did not have a clue how stuff worked. They tried in ignorance and superstition to represent God as an answer to everything. and they didn't know how water came to be on earth, even less on how water (rain) got into the sky . So they expand upon already previously established ideas of God and they hold water apart with a "Firmament" as something solid or firm , which they could try and argue to their contemporaries would hold the water in the sky. The Hebrew word used is rakia which is unsuitable in this context, (certainly if it is to âmatch scientific recordâ), as it is formed from Hebrew raka, which is to beat out like a metal plate - or like a sheet of steel to which you refer. If they had a clue they could have used 'badal' which is to divide or separate. But then they probably couldn't agree how water could stay in the sky if there was only an un - firm space to kept it up there. Ancient documents refer to 'oceans of two halves situated one above the other and religious scholars in the past stated the Firmament , or expanse, was written to be at the exact centre of the waters Which makes the thing even more absurd. This description Firmament has long been discredited and you are only perpetuating the need for limitless non relative interpretation in order to contort it into mere absurdity. Just where do you start to draw the line from guesswork assumption and story telling .? The problem is the rest of your response is also full of these unfounded statements Hey, I forewarned everyone this stuff can get aggravating. Of course, I object to the "creative" part of it as I feel that I am taking it with the author's intended meaning So it does not matter to you that this "intended meaning" can mean anything you want it to ? The Science does not allow "intended meaning" to form part of conclusions based upon evidence. In this way alone your Log of Genesis fails the basic standards of usefulness and meaning. and I wasn't sitting around saying, "How can I twist this to prove my point?". No offence, but you are giving a very reasonable impression of doing exactly that But, yes, I admit interpretation issues are much more subjective. Interpretations can be analyzed They do not need to remain subjective. It's the superficial incorrectness which you seem to be happy to accept as Scientific fact which is subjective (to say the least) and causes your Genesis Log and your attempt to âtake it with the authorâs meaningâ to fail so badly . You want truth??? Then the first stop might be to resist making up such ridiculous nonsense and learn more about the science you want to use.
Here's what I am saying: the days represent long periods of time which, as I mentioned in a previous post, is perfectly allowable in Hebrew. Here is what I said: "I think the confusion here is over the idea of a "day". The Hebrew word for day is transliterated "yom" and can mean any of the following three things: a) sunrise to sunset, b) sunset to sunset or c) a segment of time w/o any reference to solar days from weeks to years or an age or an epoch. The latter is similar to our usage in English of "the Day of the Dinosaurs" or "in my grandfather's day". In our language, a day does not always mean 24 hours and it did not in Hebrew either. A great example agreed upon by I think all Hebrew scholars is Hosea 6:2 for general interest." On day 1 it states that God made "shamayan erets" which in Hebrew means the "entire physical universe". You are seeming this is creating a seeming logical absurdity. On day 1 supposedly everything was made and yet on days 2 - 6 it describes how many things (certain animals, man) were made. How could anyone know that 30+ centuries later, science would provide the answer? Now we know that it makes perfect sense: on day 1 the entire matter, energy and time of the universe was created in the first stage of the universe just as day 1 says. Out of these raw materials everything thereafter was made including stars, galaxies, planets, etc. as well as the advanced planetary and life steps described in days 2 - 6. Again, I feel that you are trying to push the ancient text into a logical absurdity that even a my preschooler would not commit.
And I'm sorry for repeating myself but the seemingly contradictory area is in verse 16 (I believe) when, if you read it too fast, it says that God created the sun, moon, etc. on day 6. But as I said, the Hebrew does not actually say that. The text that says made (PAST tense) could even be more clearly translated HAD MADE. This verse simply say God had made the sun and moon previously at some time. And this is true - it was made during day 1. Again, the sequencing imo matches up.
All anybody is saying is "stick to the issues". Do you really want to win an argument by insulting and demeaning the other person? Let me ask it another way: do you want to win an argument by brow beating the other person? I hope that we all have the intellectual integrity to say "No, we want to win by sticking to the issues and let others decide w/o juvenile attacks..."
The website in question is named "talkorigins" not "proof or evidence" origins just talk. Talk is cheap but proof is not. You say "give me hard evidence that God exists and I will consider". That is perfectly fair. Why is it not also likewise fair for me to ask "give me hard evidence that macro-evolution occurred or life spontaneously started from inanimate objects and I will consider". Why is it emotional for me to ask for proofs not arguments but mature and wise for others to ask the same questions but of the other side.
Are you implying the NAS has some kind of secret requirement that you are an atheist to get? Are you claiming that they explicitly discriminate against theistic scientists? Thats a hell of an assertion. Why twist the facts? Our scientists have simply become less theistic as knowledge of the universe has expanded. Simple as that. No excuses required. Are best and brightest are simply more atheistic/agnostic. Readers of Science and Discover are NOT necessarily scientists and I would expect them to match the populations general beliefs which are theistic. peace axeman