I seriously welcome a critique, but please keep it to comments based on old earth creationism with the point of view of an observer on the surface on the earth from verse 2 onward. Not to criticize, but you guys are using old arguments based on talking with someone who believes the earth is 5-20,000 year old which is not the case with me. I can't say as I blame you as apparently the majority of theists you have talked with take this viewpoint. But Genesis 1 from this interpretation is rock solid (no pun intended). It has been reviewed and not found wanting, but again I welcome your critique.
666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
it is amazing, in the year 2003, with computers, genetic engineering, mars rovers, etc. we still have people actually saying this stuff. :-/
one group of people is obviously way off here. i ask, is it the religious or non-religious? think logically, please.
AXE:
So do you accept ALL other religious icons as true, because they were written about in a book?
Funny, there is no scientific proof only theories written in a science book about the earths formation but you accept it???
Greek mythology does not prove Zeus exists, and the bible stories do not prove that jesus is god.
Your confusing mythology with religion,,,,in mythology they used various characters to explain our flaws, like narcissus, aphrodite ect.....the mythology was based on our internal battles and based it on god like characters who were playing games with our life.
"Then there is the science aspect that demands FACTS but cannot provide them....3rd graders know as much about the formation of the earth as anyone else"
False. You cannot prove this.
OK....Please ask a scientist to explain the Jump from Plant to Animal cell in the formation of life and the begriming of evolution??? they cannot....but they just gloss over this and say plant cells became animal cells and started the evolutionary process of becoming animals, fish and eventually humans.....thats quite the jump don't you think? In addition, the gap between the extinction of the dinosaurs and the first humans is somewhere between 60-100 million years they say.....so where is the fossils of a catdog that became a monkey that became a gorilla that became a Neanderthal that became a hairy italian????? They skipped the earlier "transitions" and focused on cavemen and said we came from apes....yet isn't it odd that 1) they have no fossils of any animals leading up to the change ( animal cell, becoming a cat then a dog, then a monkey ect...) even though, we have fossils of animals that existed 100 -200 million years BEFORE this period????? 2) They have not been able to convert a plant cell to an animal cell in labs despite all out technology...
The article you just posted said:
"Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof."
So he is admitting, I am TAKING A LEAP OF FAITH....he's more religious then he realized....he has no proof just theory...
We have a LOT of information on the early earth, via many means.
We draw logical conclusions from this data and call it a theory.
Are you asking me to simply dismiss it?
We can infer with a certain degree of accuracy what happened 5 billion years ago. But science doesn't just make stuff up out of nothing.
What you just said is nothing more then a belief based on faith...you have no data....any data you have is 5 billion years old....the compounds and the chemicals it may have been have eroded....think about what happens to any compound over 50 years...now age it by 5 BILLION years and you are going to say definitively that its still the same compound? for all we know the earth could have been made up of some alien compound that has eroded over 5 billion years and turned into iron and granite ect...
"strangely, scientists cannot agree on the actual age of the shroud of turin and that was from about 2000 years ago...."
It's already been determined to be a hoax:
By 1980 new samples had been analyzed by microanalyst Walter McCrone who discovered that both image and "blood" areas had been painted by an artist using a red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.
Finally, in 1988 samples of the shroud's linen were radiocarbon dated by three independent laboratories. Their results were in close agreement and indicated the cloth was woven between 1260 and 1390 -- consistent with the time of the forger's confession, about 1355.
AXE, IM surprised AT YOU !....after the LS experiment on Ornish you know that there has to be some controls....I read and saw the Nova Documentary on this there is just 2 problems the McCrone has not accounted for 1) if youtake a negative photo of the shroud, .....you see the image in even clearer detail...the investigator even pointed out that " if this was a hoax in 1300, the hoaxer would have had to known then that in 700 yers Cameras would be invented that could show the image in negative light......In addition, and more importantly.....He Could not reproduce this in repeated attempts himself....he could get the blood painted on but not the negative...read up on it some more its fascinating
"Science makes no such claim.
When I roll a ball on a flat surface does it stay in motion forever? Of course not. You conveniently left out the fact that other forces can stop this motion.
what forces are they???? when you roll a ball on a flat surface on the earth GRAVITY will slow it down then stop it....when you roll a ball off a table in space......it will continue to roll strait off the table and stay at the same speed until it hits something or gravity takes over.....what is slowing the earth if that is their claim??? it's own gravity????? if that was true asteroids would not hurdle through galaxy after galaxy....thye have their own gravity too...they would slow down.
so that is why i made the statement below.....its obvious somebody is wrong
"....so either the earth IS slowing and the theory of relativity is false...."
Dr Hovind is a CREATIONIST.
So I agree with you
It seems the thesists are only capable of diverting attention away from the intelligent design argument, which Shoeshine has already conceded to not being able to prove.
My point was science about creation is nothing more then a religious leap of faith with little or no fact.
So do you accept ALL other religious icons as true, because they were written about in a book?
Funny, there is no scientific proof only theories written in a science book about the earths formation but you accept it???
Greek mythology does not prove Zeus exists, and the bible stories do not prove that jesus is god.
Your confusing mythology with religion,,,,in mythology they used various characters to explain our flaws, like narcissus, aphrodite ect.....the mythology was based on our internal battles and based it on god like characters who were playing games with our life.
"Then there is the science aspect that demands FACTS but cannot provide them....3rd graders know as much about the formation of the earth as anyone else"
False. You cannot prove this.
OK....Please ask a scientist to explain the Jump from Plant to Animal cell in the formation of life and the begriming of evolution??? they cannot....but they just gloss over this and say plant cells became animal cells and started the evolutionary process of becoming animals, fish and eventually humans.....thats quite the jump don't you think? In addition, the gap between the extinction of the dinosaurs and the first humans is somewhere between 60-100 million years they say.....so where is the fossils of a catdog that became a monkey that became a gorilla that became a Neanderthal that became a hairy italian????? They skipped the earlier "transitions" and focused on cavemen and said we came from apes....yet isn't it odd that 1) they have no fossils of any animals leading up to the change ( animal cell, becoming a cat then a dog, then a monkey ect...) even though, we have fossils of animals that existed 100 -200 million years BEFORE this period????? 2) They have not been able to convert a plant cell to an animal cell in labs despite all out technology...
The article you just posted said:
"Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof."
So he is admitting, I am TAKING A LEAP OF FAITH....he's more religious then he realized....he has no proof just theory...
We have a LOT of information on the early earth, via many means.
We draw logical conclusions from this data and call it a theory.
Are you asking me to simply dismiss it?
We can infer with a certain degree of accuracy what happened 5 billion years ago. But science doesn't just make stuff up out of nothing.
What you just said is nothing more then a belief based on faith...you have no data....any data you have is 5 billion years old....the compounds and the chemicals it may have been have eroded....think about what happens to any compound over 50 years...now age it by 5 BILLION years and you are going to say definitively that its still the same compound? for all we know the earth could have been made up of some alien compound that has eroded over 5 billion years and turned into iron and granite ect...
"strangely, scientists cannot agree on the actual age of the shroud of turin and that was from about 2000 years ago...."
It's already been determined to be a hoax:
By 1980 new samples had been analyzed by microanalyst Walter McCrone who discovered that both image and "blood" areas had been painted by an artist using a red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.
Finally, in 1988 samples of the shroud's linen were radiocarbon dated by three independent laboratories. Their results were in close agreement and indicated the cloth was woven between 1260 and 1390 -- consistent with the time of the forger's confession, about 1355.
AXE, IM surprised AT YOU !....after the LS experiment on Ornish you know that there has to be some controls....I read and saw the Nova Documentary on this there is just 2 problems the McCrone has not accounted for 1) if youtake a negative photo of the shroud, .....you see the image in even clearer detail...the investigator even pointed out that " if this was a hoax in 1300, the hoaxer would have had to known then that in 700 yers Cameras would be invented that could show the image in negative light......In addition, and more importantly.....He Could not reproduce this in repeated attempts himself....he could get the blood painted on but not the negative...read up on it some more its fascinating
"Science makes no such claim.
When I roll a ball on a flat surface does it stay in motion forever? Of course not. You conveniently left out the fact that other forces can stop this motion.
what forces are they???? when you roll a ball on a flat surface on the earth GRAVITY will slow it down then stop it....when you roll a ball off a table in space......it will continue to roll strait off the table and stay at the same speed until it hits something or gravity takes over.....what is slowing the earth if that is their claim??? it's own gravity????? if that was true asteroids would not hurdle through galaxy after galaxy....thye have their own gravity too...they would slow down.
so that is why i made the statement below.....its obvious somebody is wrong
"....so either the earth IS slowing and the theory of relativity is false...."
Dr Hovind is a CREATIONIST.
So I agree with you
It seems the thesists are only capable of diverting attention away from the intelligent design argument, which Shoeshine has already conceded to not being able to prove.
My point was science about creation is nothing more then a religious leap of faith with little or no fact.
I am stunned that there are still anti-supernaturalists around. C'mon! Think Deanna Troy - not Spock!
Ok shoeshine I am not mad either,l@@k I am smiling
but may I ask, are you just having a laugh with this???Just once more then, although any hope of credibility coming from you is looking very shaky....
Genesis Verse 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
Genesis 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
I am looking at verse 2 could you please show me where it says anything like your very words... "the viewpoint of the observer given in verse 2:" a viewpoint is GIVEN in verse 2?? Where and how ( just where would do )
Let's say you are this illusive observer, where is the mention of an atmosphere in verses 1 2 or 3 which.... "would go from opaque to translucent " (your own words)
For Genesis to "match perfectly the astronomical and archaeological record" as you say it does you need an atmosphere to make water. Where is it??
I am stood as an observer now as you are and there isn't one. Not even God is saying there is one....it's only you who is saying there is one.
Come on shoeshine, I thought you wanted to have a sensible debate.
Be reasonable here! You are asking me to find a peer-reviewed journal on near death experiences? The APA isn't going to touch that in our lifetime! And it's not because there's nothing there either.
I only brought up this point because I am trying to show there MAY be more to the universe than meets the eye. But you guys are religious in your denial of even the possilbility. For example, did one of you guys say, "Yes, there's a small percentage of cases that cannot be easily explained. Researchers need to investigate that and get to the bottom of it." I'm not shoving it down anyone's throat - I agree it's all tentative at this point.
But your guys response is essentially "We already know that there is no spiritual side to life. Everyone else is deceived and needs to read the latest brain stimulation studies. We live in four dimensions and that's it. Get used to it people - we've got it all figured out for you."
Quote from stu:
Ok shoeshine I am not mad either,l@@k I am smiling
Just once more then, although any hope of credibility coming from you is looking very shaky....
Genesis Verse 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
Genesis 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
I am looking at verse 2 could you please show me where it says anything like your very words... "the viewpoint of the observer given in verse 2:" a viewpoint is GIVEN in verse 2?? Where and how ( just where would do )
Let's say you are this illusive observer, where is the mention of an atmosphere in verses 1 2 or 3 which.... "would go from opaque to translucent " (your own words)
For Genesis to "match perfectly the astronomical and archaeological record" as you say it does you need an atmosphere to make water. Where is it??
I am stood as an observer now as you are and there isn't one. Not even God is saying there is one....it's only you who is saying there is one.
Come on shoeshine, I thought you wanted to have a sensible debate.
I may have been off by a verse and if I am I'm sorry. And I don't have a Bible with me. But the passage clearly and very early says that the Spirit moved on the face of the waters. This clearly shows that this is being observed from the earth's surface, not from God's viewpoint looking down on the earth as everyone assumes.
Look, this has already been hammered out. It does match the record. There is one very small criticism that you could levy against it, but this has recently been refuted as well. I'm not trying to be arrogant, but you're wasting your time on this one. You would do much better to do what axeman did and just say that this is my interpretation of Genesis and that I may be wrong.
Not true.
1) I do not require a peer reviewed article. But I do require that the article be read critically. I at least NEED an article. I personally remember reading an article that discusses this in detail from a biological standpoint that made a lot of sense. It did NOt have to appeal to anything supernatural at all. But I did not mention this because it is hearsay and I don't have the time to look it up.
2) Any rational atheist will freely admit there MAY by more to the universe than meets the eye. But there MAY be three headed unicorns too. Don't you agree? Without some solid evidence of a supernatural explanation there really is no point in spending time researching it further.
3) If something is currently unexplainable, why do you first jump to supernatural conclusions when other people can come up with natural hypothesis that don't require such extraordinary claims?
4) ""We already know that there is no spiritual side to life. " Not true at all. There simply is no evidence for it.
5) " Everyone else is deceived and needs to read the latest brain stimulation studies." Then POST them.
peace
axeman
1) I do not require a peer reviewed article. But I do require that the article be read critically. I at least NEED an article. I personally remember reading an article that discusses this in detail from a biological standpoint that made a lot of sense. It did NOt have to appeal to anything supernatural at all. But I did not mention this because it is hearsay and I don't have the time to look it up.
2) Any rational atheist will freely admit there MAY by more to the universe than meets the eye. But there MAY be three headed unicorns too. Don't you agree? Without some solid evidence of a supernatural explanation there really is no point in spending time researching it further.
3) If something is currently unexplainable, why do you first jump to supernatural conclusions when other people can come up with natural hypothesis that don't require such extraordinary claims?
4) ""We already know that there is no spiritual side to life. " Not true at all. There simply is no evidence for it.
5) " Everyone else is deceived and needs to read the latest brain stimulation studies." Then POST them.
peace
axeman
Shoeshine,
Your bias here is glaring. Quite simply put, your creative interpretation of the story as a defense, falls flat on it's face.
If this were judged by a party of unbiased people, a jury of sorts, it would be obvious that stu has made a far stronger case than you.
You have NO WAY of proving that YOUR interpreted version IS THE version which the author MEANT.
I WAGER that the vast majority of laymen reading the passage for the first time would NOT come to the creatively interpreted conclusion you have drawn.
The only reason you have to RESORT to creative interpretation is BECAUSE the passage obviously DOES NOT match the scientific record.
peace
axeman
Your bias here is glaring. Quite simply put, your creative interpretation of the story as a defense, falls flat on it's face.
If this were judged by a party of unbiased people, a jury of sorts, it would be obvious that stu has made a far stronger case than you.
You have NO WAY of proving that YOUR interpreted version IS THE version which the author MEANT.
I WAGER that the vast majority of laymen reading the passage for the first time would NOT come to the creatively interpreted conclusion you have drawn.
The only reason you have to RESORT to creative interpretation is BECAUSE the passage obviously DOES NOT match the scientific record.
peace
axeman