Abiogenesis

[Shemjaza]

No, I am recognizing a basic fact. That in the area and time that much of the Bible was written a belief in a Flat Earth was prevalent. That belief would have very likely have affected how the Bible was written. It does not make that belief true.

I'd have thought that by the time of the New Testament being written down that general education of literate Hebrews would let them know the world was bigger and rounder then more ancient cosmologies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proof?

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"...most theories, soon after conception. --Albert Einstein

It is a pity that you do not understand scientific theories. Yes, most will get a "no" someday. That does not necessarily mean that the theory was all wrong, merely that it could not explain all of the facts. Newton's Law of Attraction, which was more of a theory actually, was 'replaced' by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. There were limited areas where Newton was wrong but Einstein was right. Einstein knew his theory is incomplete, which all but guarantees that it will be replaced some day.

Yet we still use Newtonian gravity all of the time today even though we know it to be "wrong". In reality it is good enough for most cases and it is far easier to calculate. Correcting Newton won't make gravity go away and correcting Darwin (scientists no longer use Darwinian evolution) did not make evolution go away. The explanations may change, but the basic facts are still the same. Gravity still exists. Fall Down Go Boom has been true all of your life and always will be. The same applies to the fact of evolution. Improving the explanation did not make it go away.


That is why you will hear people talk about the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity. And the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. The fact remains, the theories improve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd have thought that by the time of the New Testament being written down that general education of literate Hebrews would let them know the world was bigger and rounder then more ancient cosmologies.

That was why I used the qualifier of "much of the Bible". It was likely that at least some if not all of the New Testament writers knew the Earth was spherical. There was a strong Greek influence on the area then.

 

[Strathos]

No, I am recognizing a basic fact. That in the area and time that much of the Bible was written a belief in a Flat Earth was prevalent. That belief would have very likely have affected how the Bible was written. It does not make that belief true.

Do you think the NT writers really believed that there was a physical mountain from which every kingdom of the world could be seen? If that was the case, said mountain could also be seen from anywhere on earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think the NT writers really believed that there was a physical mountain from which every kingdom of the world could be seen? If that was the case, said mountain could also be seen from anywhere on earth.

See my previous post. And wasn't that found in Matthew only? The author of Matthew may have had a Flat Earth belief too. Realize that if a writer did believe in a Flat Earth it would affect how he related the story.

 

[Strathos]

See my previous post. And wasn't that found in Matthew only? The author of Matthew may have had a Flat Earth belief too. Realize that if a writer did believe in a Flat Earth it would affect how he related the story.

You're missing the point. Even flat earthers have to make up excuses for why you can't see things past a certain distance. The idea of a literal mountain where it is naturally possible to see everywhere on the planet is not something even a flat earther would claim exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're missing the point. Even flat earthers have to make up excuses for why you can't see things past a certain distance. The idea of a literal mountain where it is naturally possible to see everywhere on the planet is not something even a flat earther would claim exists.

Now you are conflating modern Flat Earth believers with ancient ones.

 

[Speedwell]

Proof?

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"...most theories, soon after conception. --Albert Einstein

And Nature said "no" to biblical creationism 200 years ago.

 

[Belk]

How?

That is a very good question. Science is working on an answer.

 

[Strathos]

Now you are conflating modern Flat Earth believers with ancient ones.

Aside from the whole impossible conspiracy argument, there is not much difference.

 

[renniks]

Not really, since there is no reason to suppose that the energy which drove the 'big bang' expansion was created at that point.

So, at what point was it created?

 

[renniks]

And it does not even have to be that. It only has to form a singularity, an area where none of the current laws of physics apply. The concentration would be what most people call "infinitely large, but in that context it only means a very very very high concentration of energy.

How can we suppose something exists that isn't governed by physics? Isn't that supposing something that can't be understood with science?

 

[renniks]

Odin was too manipulative? I take it you have never read the Old Testament. The book of Job, then Genesis, and Exodus should change your mind.

I've read the whole Bible multiple times. And it portrays a loving God, although that revelation is something that is gradually more evident as you read further than the old testament.

 

[renniks]

Why not? Flat earth gets you closer to the biblical text.

I never saw anything in the text to make me believe the Earth is flat.

 

[renniks]

There is both positive and negative energy in physics. As long as they balance out there is no violation. There are several YouTube videos on this concept, it is not going to be explained in a short post here. Would you like to see one?

You didn't answer the question, you just diverted.

 

[Speedwell]

How can we suppose something exists that isn't governed by physics?

By the current laws of physics.

Isn't that supposing something that can't be understood with science?

No. Science can in principle determine what laws are in effect and whether they have changed. The "laws" of physics are not immutable decrees. In science, a "law" is merely an observed regularity in the behavior of a phenomenon.

 

[renniks]

Actually it does. The time Satan took Jesus up on a high mountain only makes sense in a Flat Earth. A globe makes that obviously pointless. The same with the tree in Daniel. It was a dream, but the dream showed a belief in a Flat Earth. The "circle of the Earth" is another example. There was a term that could have been used but the actual term used was that of an inscribed circle in Hebrew, making it even "flatter". Find an actual "the Earth is a sphere" verse, direct or implied.

Really, you are getting a flat Earth from visions? Do you really think the devil showed Jesus the whole Earth, laid out flat?
And the verse in Isaiah does describe the Earth as circular, although with all the metaphorical language in Isaiah, I don't take that as a scientific explanation.

 

[renniks]

No. Science can in principle determine what laws are in effect and whether they have changed. The "laws" of physics are not immutable decrees. In science, a "law" is merely an observed regularity in the behavior of a phenomenon.

But you can't study and test something, that isn't testable under the current laws of physics.

 

[Speedwell]

So, at what point was it created?

That is not known. If it was created, it must have been at a time before we know anything about it, assuming that the concept of "time" had any meaning under those circumstances, which is also something we don't know.

 

[Speedwell]

But you can't study and test something, that isn't testable under the current laws of physics.

Testing it is how you determine what the laws are, what the behaviors of physical phenomena actually are. The "laws of physics" were once Newton's laws, but by testing them it was discovered that they were wrong.