 |
| |
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Some parts are good. Much is posturing.
quote:
Also, they have never shown that cephalopods actually see better. On the contrary, their eyes merely ‘approach some of the lower vertebrate eyes in efficiency’[47] and they are probably colour blind.[48] |
Squid are awfully colorful for a colorblind animal. They even change colors to match their background. An error this obvious is not a good sign.
quote:
Even evolutionists concede that the inverted retina serves those creatures that possess it, very well;41 it affords them superb visual acuity. We have reviewed the necessity for this arrangement which turns on the nature of the photoreceptors. |
They have the done the usual snow job. Its not a neccessity. It serves us well because it has been refined by 200 million or more years of evolution. That can make up for a bad start.
quote:
Light at various wavelengths is capable of very damaging effects on biological machinery |
Of course. And it does so. Thats why we get cataracts. The UV light is absorbered in the cornea and lens.
quote:
The retina, besides being an extremely sophisticated transducer and image processor, is clearly designed to withstand the toxic and heating effects of light. |
Yes it clearly did evolve that way except for the many defects that happen anyway. Like cataracts, myopia, retinitis pigmentosa, and good ole macular degeneration. Very well done Jehova. Sure you wouldn't rather the Bible admited to evolution?
quote:
Besides the almost complete exclusion of ultraviolet radiation by the cornea and the lens together, the retina itself is endowed with a number of additional mechanisms to protect against such damage: |
Didn't he just say the cornea and lens did the job. The rest is uneeded then. Indeed it is counter productive. Our eyes work well most of the time. A different layout would be better and all this obfuscation won't change that.
quote:
If the human retina were ‘wired’ the other way around (the verted configuration), as evolutionists such as Dawkins propose,2 these two opaque layers would have to be interposed in the path of light to the photoreceptors which would leave them in darkness! |
Utterly fraudulent claim. They would never have evolved that way. The octupus don't have this alleged problem. Neither would we.
quote:
Thus I suggest that the need for protection against light-induced damage, which a verted retina in our natural environment could not provide to the same degree, is a major, if not the major reason for the existence of the inverted configuration of the retina. |
I suggest that its because it started that way with creatures that didn't need excellent vision. Since that bad start evolution has done a decent job of working around that bad start.
He suggests all that because he feels the need to invent something to cover up reality.
He did go to a lot of work though. To bad it was just to obfuscate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Wisdom teeth may have been helpful before fire to help eat meat? |
There is nothing wrong with wisdom teeth. Till we started useing forks. Take a look at older skulls. You will see the teeth meet edge on edge. Few people have that anymore. I am not talking ancient fossil skulls either. Just stuff a thousand or two years old.
Well except for my brother. He has edge on edge dentition. I think its the Irish coming out in him. His wisdom teeth are fine. Mine didn't come out right.
Think of it as underbite being due to forks. Its the underbite that is making problems for wisdom teeth.
That happens to evidence that men have still been evolving even recently.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
As for most of these post: they are a waste of my time. A lot of them consisted of philosophical pipsqueeks calling me a troll, probably because they could not refute my argument. So I won't bother answering them point for point, as they don;t seem on really answering me. Especially Lincoln's post, which are not "hard empirical evidence" like I asked for. All he does is make things up and quote the Bible, anyone can do that, and such arguments count for absolutely nothing. As they are all very weak since their premises are so questionable.
Lincoln tries to avoid this by saying "evolution has no empirical backing either", this even if true (it most definatlely isn't)has nothing to do with the issue at hand and in no way makes up for his lack of empirical evidence. We are talking about the merits of creationism here....not the flaws of evolution.  Poking holes in the former does nothing to establish the later. On Lincoln's comment of him being a "logical realist", if he's a realist then I'm a altar boy. His beliefs are based on 100 percent faith not logic. His existology is third person solipsism (Godism) like that of Berekley, that's not realism. I say that in regards to realism Lincoln is a pretender...a fake. 
Now onto more intelligent commentary:
quote:
MacTBone: I bet LR will call Descartes a solipsist. As it stands, I may just do it for him...
Descartes is of the opinion that our only source of knowledge is our own mind. If we accept this, then, yes, all science is based on our perceptions. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody tis there to see it, then, it wouldn't make a sound. |
Well yes I would call the guy a solipsist, though I doubt he would want to be called one. More of a third person solipsist like Lincoln, and yes, such a position has been refuted, and is well known to be contradictory.
Descartes main problem lies in his denial of logical principles then his claim that he can know this with certainty "I think therefore I am".
If you really examine his statement though it doesn't hold water. His whole argument of " I think therefore I am" is that, "if I wasn't and I thought", it would be contradictory, for a non-existent thing cannot think, Descartes imagined that an "evil God" capable of decieving his senses and logic, still couldn't decieve Descartes about his own existence, for to decieve someone, that person must exist.So even if there was an evil God, Descartes could know of one things with certainty: that he exists.
But lets go back a bit and examine whether or not he could be certain of that. Descartes whole point is based on the idea that a non-existent thing cannot think i.e. cannot be decieved. Why not? The answer is because a non-existent thing that thought or was decieved would be contradictory. But Descartes already said he wasn't sure of logic, that an evil God could even decieve him of that. And if logic does not hold contradictions can exist. Non-existent things can think and be decieved. Without logic, absolutely anything is possible. In fact the word "impossible" stems from logic, it implies a violation of logic. Without logic nothing is impossible. So Descartes, if he was consistent, would be still stuck in universal skepticism.
The whole problem lies in Descartes notion that he can jettison logic, including the law of non-contradiction, and then arbitrarily call upon it to uphold his statement. This does not work. In order to combat skepticism like that, the only possible path is to recognize the self-evident nature of logic and recognize that universal skepticism, is illogical and therefore itself a sort of faith. In the words of the Skeptic's Society
quote:
Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins of the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber. |
It is thus by logic that one defeats such skepticism, not by arbitrary dictums.
As for Descartes realist positions, his argument for that was basically that "God exists" (which he tried to establish via traditional theist 'proofs') and that since God exists, he would not decieve Descartes' senses, so what Descartes is seeing must be real.(An interesting note lies in the fact that Descartes likewise established logic's truth via God's existence....amusing since he proved God exists using logic) A rather weak argument seeing as any "proof" for God does not last through five minutes of serious logical criticism. Again here, like in other areas of philosophy, the realist position must be established as a self-evident truth in-itself, by hypothtico-deductive method or by sound logical argument via showing that subjectivism is absurd "reductio ad absurdum".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
You shall not see my face! Moses saw Him, but not His face. |
Two mistakes there. One is that Jehovah did not just say face. He said no one shall see him and live.
Other verses don't even mention face in passing.
The other is your idea that Moses is the only one in the Bible that saw any part of Jehovah. Abraham saw him. Face to face.
Jacob claims to have seen him but that could be called a delusion unlike the Abraham incident. That one comes just before the Sodom an Gomorah story.
Which is too bad or your Moses story would make a better joke.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Depends on the translation. |
Well then how about we look at the original?
'amar
yakol
ra'ah
paniym - the key word
'adam
ra'ah
chayay
06440 paniym {paw-neem'} pl. (but always as sing.) of an unused
noun [paneh{paw-neh'}
from 06437; TWOT - 1782a; n m
AV - before 1137, face 390, presence 76, because 67, sight 40,
countenance 30, from 27, person 21, upon 20, of 20, ...me 18,
against 17, ...him 16, open 13, for 13, toward 9, misc 195; 2109
As you can see there its not merely "face" its more like the face and presence.
Pleading traslation problems is mere evasion unless you actually check the original. Its readily available.
quote:
I looked - it says "The Lord appeared to Abraham" but it never says Abraham saw Him - he saw 3 visitors. |
One of which was Jehovah. Abraham fed him. Washed his feet. Had a long conversation. Are you claiming he did all this without opening his eyes?
2 - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 - And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Thats pretty clear that he saw Jehovah. It says Jehovah not the Lord in Hebrew.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Well then how about we look at the original?
'amar
yakol
ra'ah
paniym - the key word
'adam
ra'ah
chayay
06440 paniym {paw-neem'} pl. (but always as sing.) of an unused
noun [paneh{paw-neh'}
from 06437; TWOT - 1782a; n m
AV - before 1137, face 390, presence 76, because 67, sight 40,
countenance 30, from 27, person 21, upon 20, of 20, ...me 18,
against 17, ...him 16, open 13, for 13, toward 9, misc 195; 2109
As you can see there its not merely "face" its more like the face and presence. |
It's more like your own personal oppinion, bud. I think your oppinion is a little biased in one little point: God can tke the human form if he want's to; He's not solely spirit. I don't agree with you, and neither would the jews or the first christians.
quote:
Pleading traslation problems is mere evasion unless you actually check the original. Its readily available. |
I completely agree with you. Could you provide us a link, please?
quote:
One of which was Jehovah. Abraham fed him. Washed his feet. Had a long conversation. Are you claiming he did all this without opening his eyes? |
Where is it written anywhere that one of them was God? See how your lookingat those versicles ina narrowpointof view?
quote:
2 - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 - And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Thats pretty clear that he saw Jehovah. It says Jehovah not the Lord in Hebrew. |
No, it absolutely doesn't. In point 3, what you read is Abraham praizing to Jehova (yes, it's true that in the original is the tetragram where most of you read Lord in capital letters), but like praying, not speaking directly to Him.
Last edited by Zealot on 04-04-2002 at 03:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
It's more like your own personal oppinion, bud. |
You are mistaken. Its from a christian site. I allready posted the URL. I only copied it.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
quote:
God can tke the human form if he want's to; He's not solely spirit. |
I never said otherwise. I only pointed out that the Bible says no one has seen god but Abraham did see god. Sorry you don't like what the Bible says.
quote:
I don't agree with you, and neither would the jews or the first christians. |
You aren't disagreeing with anything I said. You are disagreeing with the Bible and a purely christian site.
quote:
I completely agree with you. Could you provide us a link, please? |
Well I allready did in my post following that one but I have it here as well. Of course you didn't like the quotes from it and called it my oppinion. So perhaps you don't want really want to see whats at Blue Letter.
quote:
Where is it written anywhere that one of them was God? See how your lookingat those versicles ina narrowpointof view? |
It was exceedingly clear that one of them was Jehovah. You would have to be blind to miss that. Read the rest of the passage to see the conversation.
quote:
No, it absolutely doesn't. In point 3, what you read is Abraham praizing to Jehova |
No he is speaking DIRECTLY to Jehovah who is standing right there.
Like I said, just read the whole passage. Its very clear that Jehovah and Abraham are having a conversation. Only by the most obdurate refusal to accept what the Bible actualy says can you force it to mean anything else.
Here is the chapter in the KJV at Blue Letter. I can provide other vesions at other sites if you would like.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen018.html#top
If you refuse to accept what it says perhaps you should give up on fundamentalism. There are many christians that don't think the Bible is without error. I have some more contradictions I could post if you like. They aren't the silly ones that many other agnostics use. They are as significant as this one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
You are mistaken. Its from a christian site. I allready posted the URL. I only copied it.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
|
Gee, how to put this without shocking you? 
There are several factions of so-called cristians as there are evolutionists! And that link is just pointing to the home page.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
I never said otherwise. I only pointed out that the Bible says no one has seen god but Abraham did see god. Sorry you don't like what the Bible says. |
No, I love what the Bible says. It's my only defence against those who like to make up on their own, and create their own religion, and defend it like everyone else is a hypocrit! Gee, guess what, like what you're doing right now!
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
You aren't disagreeing with anything I said. You are disagreeing with the Bible and a purely christian site. |
Crap
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Well I allready did in my post following that one but I have it here as well. Of course you didn't like the quotes from it and called it my oppinion. So perhaps you don't want really want to see whats at Blue Letter. |
I did, I just didn't look at the C square, which is the hebrew version, right away. Since I was on Interactive television back there, meaning I can only have one browser window opened at a time and that it's slow as hell, I reserve myself the right to not look at everything you post. I did now.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
It was exceedingly clear that one of them was Jehovah. You would have to be blind to miss that. Read the rest of the passage to see the conversation. |
crap
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
No he is speaking DIRECTLY to Jehovah who is standing right there. |
crap
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Like I said, just read the whole passage. Its very clear that Jehovah and Abraham are having a conversation. Only by the most obdurate refusal to accept what the Bible actualy says can you force it to mean anything else. |
crap
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Here is the chapter in the KJV at Blue Letter. I can provide other vesions at other sites if you would like.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen018.html#top
If you refuse to accept what it says perhaps you should give up on fundamentalism. There are many christians that don't think the Bible is without error. I have some more contradictions I could post if you like. They aren't the silly ones that many other agnostics use. They are as significant as this one. |
I mean, long live your religion!
I hope you're happy with it! I'm sorry for the lack of patience to stand up with you, but I just can't be patient with those who acuse others of fundamentalism, when you can read something no one else can.
Not believing is one thing; making up is another.
So preach all you want, you have just become the first Apolytoner to deserve to get into my ignore list
And believe me, I tolerate[d] all religious points of view up to now!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Goingonit
God saw him - but god is omniscient. And those three are, according to Rabbi Plaut, who wrote the commentary which I have:
And the idea is that they appeared to Abraham as ordinary men: if he beholds the Divine presence, of course he's going to feed it. |
Adding to the Bible is a no-no. You and the Rabbi just did that. The passage is very clear. Abraham was talking to Jehovah. Jehovah had no need to send Angels or go himself if he was omniscent. The fact is the story was added in to justify the slaughter of everyone in Sodom and Gomorah by someone that noticed the Jehovah came off as a raging psychopath. It was a patch job and a bad one. Nevertheless the patch has Abraham talking to Jehovah. Not three angels either and you can tell that because only TWO go to Lots house.
Devine prescense is not mentioned at all by Jehovah. He said no one can see him and live. He made no caveats or limitations in any way whatsoever. So again that is adding to the Bible. It takes a lot of brass to put words in the mouth of Jehovah.
Oh yes Jehovah also appears to Abraham in the preceeding chapter 17.
However as a punishment for adding to the Bible I will inflict you with the curse of knowledge. Another contradiction. This one is all in one chapter.
Gen 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where (is) Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: (Am) I my brother's keeper?
Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Gen 4:11 And now (art) thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment (is) greater than I can bear.
Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me.
Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
So there is Cain being cursed to be vagabond to wonder with no limitations on the punishment and even a mark on him so he will not be killed. Everyone would know the evil of Cain.
Where everyone came from is another question. The Bible has an awfull lot of people wandering around that seem completely unrelated to Adam and Eve. Well accuracy and credibility isn't the Bible's strong suit.
Now on to the contradiction. Same chapter.
Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
Some vagabond. Couldn't even wait till the next chapter to found a city and have children. Thats not wandering. Its not the actions of a vagabond.
If you try to make this go away please try not to add to the Bible this time around. Unless you are a prophet that is. If you are a prophet remember the punishment for making even one mistake.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Gee, how to put this without shocking you? :rolleyes
There are several factions of so-called cristians as there are evolutionists! And that link is just pointing to the home page. |
Factions have nothing to do with it. Yes its the home page. Surely you can go on from there.
There are no factions of evolutionists. Evolutionist is a Creationist word only. There are scientist with different oppinions. They check those oppinions against reality. When an oppinion is found to be error it goes out the window. They do not merely ignore reality as Creationists do.
quote:
No, I love what the Bible says. It's my only defence against those who like to make up on their own, and create their own religion, and defend it like everyone else is a hypocrit! Gee, guess what, like what you're doing right now! |
Pointing out the errors in the Bible. Just the internal ones.
Such a rebuttal. Show an error. Its a christian site and I quoted from it. Its nonsense to call that crap since its an accurate statement in every way.
Gosh I love your brilliant rebuttals. They are so well researched and unasailable.
Its obvious that you can't refute a single word. Perhaps you simply don't know many more words than 'crap'.
quote:
I mean, long live your religion! |
I don't have one.
quote:
Not believing is one thing; making up is another. |
I made up nothing. You showed no error by me. Crap is not a devastatingly brilliant rebuttal. Its an admission you have no answer.
quote:
So preach all you want, you have just become the first Apolytoner to deserve to get into my ignore list |
I am devastated. Its awful that a person with a closed mind would announce his intention to shutter it ever more tightly to all and sundry.
I accept your surrender.
quote:
And believe me, I tolerate[d] all religious points of view up to now
|
I see no reason to believe you. After all you haven't even noticed that I don't have a religion. Yet you asail it without knowing it. Hardly a sign of tolerance.
I have no religion in any case. Believing without reason is what religion is. That includes saying there absolutely is no god as pure atheists do. It is possible that there is a god. The god of Genesis however does not appear to be the creator of the world we live in. I will stick to being an agnostic till I see some evidence for any religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Such irony in that IMHO. |
I am impressed Thrawn. You have slain the many headed beast that is Creationism vs. Science with you unmatched wit. We will all go into our PC rooms and hang our heads in shame by the glow of our monitors.
I abjectly surrender to your might.
Unless someone pops up with a rebuttal to me that is. I have one scalp allready on this thread. I might as well see if I can hang a few more next to my Cathode Ray Shrine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life on the earth, though in many points creationists have things wrong. This is mainly do to missintripiting what the Bible really says. I know for many people who have heard the claims the creationists have made that the earth was created in 7 literal 24 hour days. There is extentisive evidence to indicate that the Earth is billions of years old. The creation account in Gensis though does not says that the earth was created in a week. THe Hebrew word "yohm", which is translated day can various lengths of time.
This word was used to represent long periods of time, and periods of time when something really important happened. Also today many people often use the term "day" to refer not to a 24 hour time period, but much longer periods of time.
Also the Bible uses the term "Day" sometimes to describe the passing of seasons and other time periods.
"And it must occur in that day that living waters will go forth form Jerusalem, half will go to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. In summer and winter it will occur." -Zechariah 14:8
"Just like the coolness of snow in the day of the harvest is the faithful envoy to those sending him for he restores the very soul of his masters." -Proverbs 25:13
"Now Reubnen went walking in the days of the wheat harvest." - Gensis 30:14
"However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." - 2 Peter 3:8,10
Thus the days refered to in the Gensis creation account are not 24 hour days, but long periods of time that could have been millions of years long.
since it is getting late and I need sleep I will post more latter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
THe Hebrew word "yohm", which is translated day can various lengths of time. |
The problem there is that nearly every day has a mention of morning and evening. Even ones before there is a Sun and an Earth.
The order of creation is wrong enough that using a variable length of time for the days don't fix up the problems. Plus there are two different stories of creation in the Bible and they have different orders. Its hard to patch over the differences.
So what do think about the Flood. That one is pretty specific about time?
Do you accept it as written or do you think its just a story?
While old Earth creationists aren't allowed in ICR there still are a lot of them. Thats why I often concentrate on the Flood.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
The problem there is that nearly every day has a mention of morning and evening. Even ones before there is a Sun and an Earth.
The order of creation is wrong enough that using a variable length of time for the days don't fix up the problems. Plus there are two different stories of creation in the Bible and they have different orders. Its hard to patch over the differences.
So what do think about the Flood. That one is pretty specific about time?
Do you accept it as written or do you think its just a story?
While old Earth creationists aren't allowed in ICR there still are a lot of them. Thats why I often concentrate on the Flood. |
The creation account in Gensis is written form the standpoint form an observer on the earth. The creation account in Gensis only focus on the creation of the Earth not the Universe. First as I said the term day in Gensis does not refer to a litteral 24 hour day. Thus saying this "day" had a morning and evening, even if the sun was not in extience is not a problem. The fact it say this day has a morning is more like stating that is has started and evening would indicated the day has ended.
In fact the rest of the universe was in extistence when the earth and all life on it was created. Inculding the sun. Also the reason why I was bring up the info about the creation days being much longer than 24 hour time period not to try to patch up any conflicts that apear to be in the Gensis Creation account, but for those who have a really hard time believe that the earth on all life no it could have been created in a week.
I will go over the creation account in Gensis latter to clearify what the Bible says. I think that it is improtant that first before anyone starts to try and say that the creation account in Gensis is wrong that they sould get the full facts, and accaully read what it says. I am not saying any of you have nopt done this, but I know most people have never read the Bible for themselves and they start making judgements on it based upon what other people say, without looking in to it for themselves. Also too many people in the general population know very little about science as well, which is also said. I heard that here in the US only 17% are litererate in science. Forget the poll, but I can get the info on that. Right now I am at school and need to go to class so I dont have time to post more right now.
ZoboZeWarrior can you please clearify what you are trying to say, I am have a hard time tyring to figure out what you are trying to say, I dont mean to be rude, and it most likly just me that is having the problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
The fact it say this day has a morning is more like stating that is has started and evening would indicated the day has ended. |
Nice dance around the words. OK we have that part settled. Then you don't believe the Earth is around 6000 years old. Many disagree with you though. I debate them too. So it would be good to keep that issue seperate.
Of course if you do believe the Earth is essentially young and you are just debating how young I don't see why you would bother. Days or weeks or kiloyears its still not 4.6 billion years.
quote:
but for those who have a really hard time believe that the earth on all life no it could have been created in a week. |
Assuming an all powerfull god thats not a problem. The problen is the world doesn't match that story unless you assume that Jehovah created the world in six days and did so in way that makes it look exactly like a word that accretted out of a solar disk about 4.6 billion years ago. Thus requiring a deceptive god assuming the Bible is actually gods word. I go for the Bible as wrong rather than a deceptive god. I don't see how one could ascertain which was the true method of creation if you assume god is pulling your leg with one or the other.
quote:
I will go over the creation account in Gensis latter to clearify what the Bible says. |
OK keep in mind though that there are two variations of creation in Genesis.
Because I will even if you don't.
quote:
. I think that it is improtant that first before anyone starts to try and say that the creation account in Gensis is wrong that they sould get the full facts, and accaully read what it says. |
Too late I allready read Genesis. And have allready discussed it at length which has helped me to keep the details in mind. So yes I do know what it really says. I have even cross checked the Hebrew in parts. Of course I have to take the Blue Letter Bibles word on the definitions for the Hebrew terms since I don't know the language myself. I am willing to check with another source if you prefer another.
However outside Genesis and most of Exodus I have only read bits and pieces.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
THe Hebrew word "yohm", which is translated day can various lengths of time. |
And I wonder, had scientists found that the world was 6,000 years old and had been created in six days, would you be saying the same thing?
What makes you think then, that out of all the possible dates that "yohm" can stand for that it will stand for the same date scientists say is the age of the Earth? Was such a "date" chosen based on what the Isrealis and stuff really believed, on the actual merits of such an interpretation, or was it chosen to make the Bible compatible with science? If the latter is the case, isn't it likely that you might be basing all such "interpretations" on pure preference?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Assuming an all powerfull god thats not a problem. The problen is the world doesn't match that story unless you assume that Jehovah created the world in six days and did so in way that makes it look exactly like a word that accretted out of a solar disk about 4.6 billion years ago. Thus requiring a deceptive god assuming the Bible is actually gods word. I go for the Bible as wrong rather than a deceptive god. I don't see how one could ascertain which was the true method of creation if you assume god is pulling your leg with one or the other.
|
I with Jehovah time does really matter to Him, He has all the time he could possibly want. Maybe he could create the earth in 7 days, but the Bible does not tells us that, refer to my post above.
quote:
OK keep in mind though that there are two variations of creation in Genesis.
Because I will even if you don't.
|
Dont worry I will address this.
quote:
Too late I allready read Genesis. And have allready discussed it at length which has helped me to keep the details in mind. So yes I do know what it really says. I have even cross checked the Hebrew in parts. Of course I have to take the Blue Letter Bibles word on the definitions for the Hebrew terms since I don't know the language myself. I am willing to check with another source if you prefer another.
However outside Genesis and most of Exodus I have only read bits and
pieces. |
I was not trying to say that you did not read the Bible at all, what I was saying there are a alot of people out there, even people who believe that the Bible is inspired by God who do not read the Bible. I am sorry for the missunderstanding.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I will now go over the Gensis Creation account.
First Day- Gensis 1:1-5
Here the Bible states that the earth was already in existence for quite some time and was orbitting the Sun already. It says that the earth was covered with water and that light apeared on the suface of the earth and a division between light and darkness had appeared. A translation of the Bible by J.W. Watts says this, "God Proceed to say, 'Let there be light.'; and gradually light came inot existence." (Gensis 1:3). The hebrew verb which is translated here as "gradually ... come" is a verb that denotes progressive action that takes a long time to complete. Thus the Sun was in existence, but the sunlight could not reach the reach, most likely because there were gases such as water vapor and volcanic ash in the atmosphere and that this gradually started to clear and let light reach the surface of the earth.
Second Day- Gensis 1:6-8
God now formed a layer of water vapor that was in the upper atmosphere of the earth and cover the whole earth. This layer of water vapor was created form the earth's occeans. The space in between these layers was called the heavens, a term which many people use today to discribe the part of the atmosphere were plans and birds fly.
Third Day - Gensis 1:9-13
During this period of time God started to form major land masses. He most likely used the geological forces that are still move the plates of the earth crust. Also plant life was created at this time and appears to have continued into the Sixth creative day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Fourth Day- Gensis 1:14-19
Here the process that was started in the first creative day came to an end, and the earth's atmosphere was clear enough to be able to now see the Sun, moon, and stars form the surface of the earth.
Fifth Day- Gensis 1:20-23
During this time period sea animals and animals that fly in the air were created.
Sixth Day- Gensis 1:24-31
Now land animals were created, and so was the first human pair. The garden of Eden was made at this time and the first humans were put into the garden.
Seventh Day- Gensis 2:1-3
This is the day that God stop creating, and thus rested in the sense that he was not creating anymore. It is also interesting to note that no were in the Bible does it say that this day has yet ended. In fact the bible stated 4000 years after this Seventh Day began that is was still going on. (Hebrews 4:4-6). Thus anther reason why the creative days do not represent a 24 hour period of time.
orginally I had the preivisous three post as one, but since it took me a long time, when I selected post that it promted me to log in again, and then it said something like no thread was specfied and I lost all the stuff I typed. Thus when I retyped my post I broke it up so this would not happen again to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Logical Realist
And I wonder, had scientists found that the world was 6,000 years old and had been created in six days, would you be saying the same thing?
What makes you think then, that out of all the possible dates that "yohm" can stand for that it will stand for the same date scientists say is the age of the Earth? Was such a "date" chosen based on what the Isrealis and stuff really believed, on the actual merits of such an interpretation, or was it chosen to make the Bible compatible with science? If the latter is the case, isn't it likely that you might be basing all such "interpretations" on pure preference? |
This is based on what was wriiten in other parts of the Bible. In fact the Bilbe refers to the whole time period Jehovah God created the earth as one long period of time, "the day in which Jehovah made the earth and heaven."(Gensis 2:4; compare 2 Peter 3:8).
The fact is the earth is very old and is not 6000 years old. If we look at how the Bible uses the term day in various part of it to refer to a time period that is longer, much longer than 24 hours, and the fact that evidence shows us that the earth is not 6000 years old that the conclusion you would reach is that the term day in the creation account refers to a really long period of time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
lung,
Not that we have a facination with silly creationists - okay, can't speak for the psychologists among us - but we are just doing this to stop them from spreading their falsehood around.
The creationists are still going around with their own warped version of various scientific laws and theories to attack evolution. The best way to defend against this crap is an attack against creationism. Hey, if they got all tied up defending, they can't attack  |
Great idea, but it makes little difference. I prefer to sit back and watch as creationists try to defend their stance in the face of ever increasing evidence to the contrary, making the position more and more untenable as each year goes by  They either must retreat to whatever's currently impregnable to current knowledge, or look more and more ridiculous in the face of new evidence.
Personally, i don't know why they even bother to defend the old testament, as christianity is based primarily on the new testament, with the old testament being the domain of Judaism. The new testament is far harder to disprove, as supernatural events cannot be disproved until such time as we have effectively conquered all physics. I doubt if that will happen any time soon.
I say "live and let live", and if they insist of closing their minds to anything beyond the scope of the bible, so be it. Of course, their feeble attempts to convert those who base their beliefs on knowledge are destined to fail, so we have nothing to fear. I think the big difference is creationists place their faith in religious institutions in the absence of knowledge, while evolutionists place their faith in knowledge and the promise of science to uncover truths not yet revealed.
I must say that putting faith in creation is much more promising with the promise of an after-life, but the bombardment of evidence to the contrary makes that faith seem more and more delusional. In light of this, it's no wonder many people prefer to not know the complete truth. After all, the shattering of such illusions would be quite devastating to the unprepared! 
Curse the truth! CURSE IT ALL!!! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lung
Great idea, but it makes little difference. I prefer to sit back and watch as creationists try to defend their stance in the face of ever increasing evidence to the contrary, making the position more and more untenable as each year goes by They either must retreat to whatever's currently impregnable to current knowledge, or look more and more ridiculous in the face of new evidence.
Personally, i don't know why they even bother to defend the old testament, as christianity is based primarily on the new testament, with the old testament being the domain of Judaism. The new testament is far harder to disprove, as supernatural events cannot be disproved until such time as we have effectively conquered all physics. I doubt if that will happen any time soon.
I say "live and let live", and if they insist of closing their minds to anything beyond the scope of the bible, so be it. Of course, their feeble attempts to convert those who base their beliefs on knowledge are destined to fail, so we have nothing to fear. I think the big difference is creationists place their faith in religious institutions in the absence of knowledge, while evolutionists place their faith in knowledge and the promise of science to uncover truths not yet revealed.
I must say that putting faith in creation is much more promising with the promise of an after-life, but the bombardment of evidence to the contrary makes that faith seem more and more delusional. In light of this, it's no wonder many people prefer to not know the complete truth. After all, the shattering of such illusions would be quite devastating to the unprepared!
Curse the truth! CURSE IT ALL!!! |
I dont believe many of things that Creationists says, much of it does not make any sense. Up to the 8th grade I went to private school, and of course the only private schools are religous ones, at least were I live. Accept in 5th grade I went to one that was not a religous school, but that school only went up to the 5th grade. Anyways the science text books that they used did not make any sense to me and from my understanding of the Bible, most of it had no basis in the Bible etheir.
I love science. Right now I am going to collage and my major is Computer Science, allthough I am also thinking about majoring in Eneirgering as well. I am going to bring up scienctific evidence that proves that God created the Universe. I just wanted to first clearfy what the creation account in Gensis really says. For I am a Christian and regard the whole Bible as the word of God.
I would also like to think that I would like to keep an open mind, and rexam my own beliefs to make sure that they are really true, or just a bunch of falsehoods. I do not blindly believe in Creation, I have made proved this to my self by studying the Bible and scientific evidence.
Last edited by Jack_www on 05-04-2002 at 12:08
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2002 10:54
|