Chronogenesis II

[AV1611VET]

If I recall correctly, AVET explained in the past that he was not always KJVO.

Your recall is correct!

I don't recall if he ever said anything about his parents.

Mom neither went to church, nor read the Bible.

Dad went to church and made my sister and me go as well, until we were 16.

The church was American Baptist by denomination.

I left it and went to Independent Baptist, KJVO.

And for the record, my pastor and I disagree on that too.

My pastor believes that, if the KJB was ever to be corrected, only the Textus Receptus is qualified to do so.

Whereas I believe that the KJB is superior to the Textus Receptus.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm actually shocked. Perhaps AV would chime in?

Done.

 

[Queller]

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Would someone do me a favor please, and put these in chronological order according to the Big Bang paradigm:

1. earth
2. water
3. light
4. firmament [atmosphere on earth]
5. land
6. grass
7. [angiosperms]
8. stars
9. moon
10. [first] aquatic life
11. birds
12. whales
13. cattle
14. insects
15. man
16. woman

The jewish conception of the firmament was not of the "atmosphere". It was a solid dome that covered the flat, circular earth. The sun crawled across it on the underneath side. Jewish rabbis speculated that it crawled back on the other side which explained why we don't see it at night while its crawling back. This is historical truth about how the jews understood Genesis one.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let's correct this mindset, shall we?

"Right, judge. I realize that everything points to the dude not being the murderer - but you should understand that he is confessing to the murder, and saying he didn't kill the victim in the order presented by the prosecution."

Let's correct it more accuratly...

"Right, judge. I realize that everything points to X not being the murderer - but you should understand that this other dude here is giving testimony that X did commit the murder, and we should believe him because he claims he never lies, never makes mistakes and is all-knowing. Which means he must tell the truth since he can't lie. And he isn't lying because he says he tells the truth. And he tells the truth because he says he can't lie. And he doesn't lie because he says he tells the truth. And he tells the truth because he says he can't lie. Which must be true, because he says so. And.........

So nevermind the evidence, let's just take this dude's word for it in the most circular reasoning possible, no matter how hard the actual evidence is contradicting his testimony... the evidence must be wrong since, as we have seen before, he can't lie."

 

[AV1611VET]

The jewish conception of the firmament was not of the "atmosphere". It was a solid dome that covered the flat, circular earth. The sun crawled across it on the underneath side. Jewish rabbis speculated that it crawled back on the other side which explained why we don't see it at night while its crawling back. This is historical truth about how the jews understood Genesis one.

I'm not a Jew.

And even if I was, what's your point?

I'm asking you guys to employ your science to place a list of things in chronological order; and you guys seem to want to argue about it, rather than do it.

But for the record, Frumious Bandersnatch did it -- and did it without fanfare -- so anything after that is just a display of fake indignation, venting, and ridicule.

Here, use your math skills to put these numbers in numerical order:

8,5,3,1,9,4,7,6,2

Can you do it?

Or do you just want to vent and argue about it?

Why is it that when creationists ask you scientists to do something simple, it's like whacking a beehive for some of you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's correct it more accuratly...

"Right, judge. I realize that everything points to X not being the murderer - but you should understand that this other dude here is giving testimony that X did commit the murder, and we should believe him because he claims he never lies, never makes mistakes and is all-knowing. Which means he must tell the truth since he can't lie. And he isn't lying because he says he tells the truth. And he tells the truth because he says he can't lie. And he doesn't lie because he says he tells the truth. And he tells the truth because he says he can't lie. Which must be true, because he says so. And.........

So nevermind the evidence, let's just take this dude's word for it in the most circular reasoning possible, no matter how hard the actual evidence is contradicting his testimony... the evidence must be wrong since, as we have seen before, he can't lie."

Suit yourself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Suit yourself.

I'm just exposing it for what it is...
A shameless, dogmatic and circular faith-based belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm just exposing it for what it is...
A shameless, dogmatic and circular faith-based belief.

Coming from someone who believes science validates science -- and uses calibrated equipment (by fallible men) & programmed computers (by fallible men) to do it -- that is rich.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Coming from someone who believes science validates science

Science is a method and its effectiveness is validated by its results.
The notion "science validates science" is not sensical.

-- and uses calibrated equipment (by fallible men) & programmed computers (by fallible men) to do it -- that is rich.

As I never said that science or machines are infallible, I wonder what your point is.

However though, what outcome would you trust more for the following calculation:
4531485/5186123*6528³/6585+(6852.265/685.5)

Here are your options:
1. when the outcome was prayed for
2. when the outcome was calculated by a human in his head
3. when the outcome is provided by a calculator

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is a method and its effectiveness is validated by its results.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Whatever floats your boat.

That would be buoyancy, a principle discovered by Archimedes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Whatever floats your boat.

It is what it is. It doesn't float my boat or anyone elses.

The merrits of any method concerning anything is in its effectiveness at reaching results.

You don't validate methods by the methods themselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't validate methods by the methods themselves.

All I hear you doing is agreeing with me: science validates science.

So to say I'm in 'a shameless, dogmatic and circular faith-based belief;' I'd say you need to check the mirror first.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

All I hear you doing is agreeing with me: science validates science.

So to say I'm in 'a shameless, dogmatic and circular faith-based belief;' I'd say you need to check the mirror first.

You're wrong again. Science doesn't validate science. Rather, reality validates science, and whenever the science is found to be in conflict with reality, it is the science that is adjusted and not the reality.

After adjusting science this way over generations, we have a fair amount of confidence that the science we have today is close to reality.

Your own methods, of course, are the opposite of that.

Everything must reconcile to the Bible in its KJV incarnation, and as interpreted by you.

I will hold with those who wish to follow reality. It is, after all, from God.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'm not a Jew.

And even if I was, what's your point?

My point is your list included something that doesn't actually exist, and therefore it cannot be ascribed a time.

The firmament, as understood and meant by the writer of the first chapter of Genesis.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Interesting. The thing that instantly jumped out at me when I read this is that you have constructed a rationalization which is entirely non-falsifiable. Why is that?

Because it relates to the lens we see experience through, the philosophy of science rather than the output or end product. If you think humans have a "neutral view" you ought to...

*
And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away....
*
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
*
[bible quotes]

You probably accept gravitational lensing, but not the prior "philosophical lensing", or cognitive geometry/origami, via which we interpret data. Project "empirical data" onto a plane or a sphere and you get different versions of "the truth". As Neitzche alludes, there may be "no truth, only interpretations" at this level of ambition. So long as the cognitive geometry and the results are consistent, it provides a "possible world" (logically consistent set of propositions making up a description) at the output level.

Its like someone taught me here, the difference between normal physics and hollographic universe theory can be viewed as a preference for one type of maths over another. There are probably infinite interpretations of the so called neutral data, because there are infinite topologies (conceptual frameworks) and topographies (space time formatting or transformation of data. flat, folded, convex, rippled, warped, higher dimensional, static, fluid etc etc etc)...

Its also a bit like the the planets and the Copernican revolution. We can see the planets as "wanderers" and the earth as centre of the system, its just the maths is more messy or complicated. Likewise there can be "embedded age" etc, its just an alternative interpretation resulting from cognitive geometry / origami. But likewise so is "regular science". There is no neutral framework. Like the duck - rabbit illuision, the world is fundamentally ambiguous.

 

[AV1611VET]

The firmament, as understood and meant by the writer of the first chapter of Genesis.

Which one? there are three of them?

How is it that you scientific methodists like to accuse "the writer of the first chapter of Genesis" for not understanding a firmament; then you guys, who are supposed to have learned by direct observation of God's works (Psalm 19), have even a less understanding of them?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Which one? there are three of them?

How is it that you scientific methodists like to accuse "the writer of the first chapter of Genesis" for not understanding a firmament; then you guys, who are supposed to have learned by direct observation of God's works (Psalm 19), have even a less understanding of them?

The vagueness of the bible does not help. In fact, it makes going beyond that text necessary to have any understanding of the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

The vagueness of the bible does not help.

That doesn't hold water.

God gifts us scientists, people born with golden clipboards, to interpret all of this.

If the Bible is vague, then maybe some scientists need to get saved and let Christ lift the veil, eh?

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Notice here where scientists are referred to as "kings" in God's eyes?

Solomon was such a scientist-king.

And in today's dispensation, where the Holy Spirit has now come to dwell on the earth, scientists have no excuse to claim "vagueness."

In fact, it makes going beyond that text necessary to have any understanding of the world.

That's why I quoted Psalm 19.

And for the record, one has to only go to Genesis 2:1 to see that there are more than one "firmament" created.