Creationism Falsified!

Girlee · Jul 10, 2010

philadiddle said:
What would the point of that have been? The universe is over 80 million light years in size. Why would God take water from earth and arbitrarily put a little bit of it elsewhere in the universe? It is completely meaningless to try to make that passage scientific.

Why would you think I could explain anything God does?
I am tossing out a possible explanation.
I'm not trying to make that passage "scientific". I'm showing how science cannot prove that passage false. Science has found water throughout the universe. Which means there IS water up there. I don't see how this passage has been proven false.

philadiddle · Jul 10, 2010

Girlee said:
Why would you think I could explain anything God does?
I am tossing out a possible explanation.
I'm not trying to make that passage "scientific". I'm showing how science cannot prove that passage false. Science has found water throughout the universe. Which means there IS water up there. I don't see how this passage has been proven false.

That passage is a reflection of the cosmological view of the biblical writers. Their understanding of the universe, which is that there was a giant ocean above the sky, and the sun, moon, and stars were in the sky, is just a backdrop for the more important truths that the bible is trying to explain. Namely, there is only one God, He made everything, He made us, and we need Him. Of course there's a lot more to it than that but we'll get to it as we keep talking.

Girlee · Jul 10, 2010

I understand you see it that way, however I do not agree.

People over the years tried to line the biblical accounts to what they believe. But the accounts, i believe, are a description of what happened. The amount of time in a "day" is the only thing that is disagreeable as far as I'm concerned.

Siyha · Jul 10, 2010

Girlee said:
I understand you see it that way, however I do not agree.

People over the years tried to line the biblical accounts to what they believe. But the accounts, i believe, are a description of what happened. The amount of time in a "day" is the only thing that is disagreeable as far as I'm concerned.

My original intent in this thread was, as pointed out early on, an "inverse poe." I was trying to make an argument against creationism that refuted something creationism didn't actually claim, similar to how creationists constantly refute evolution based on things evolution doesn't claim.

The idea then is that people have to defend themselves from holding a view they don't, imposed on them from the other side.

That being said, why don't creationists claim there is a physical layer of water above the sky? So say that "the universe is filled with water, therefore it is still acurate" it applying quite an ad hoc approach to the verse, since all other things in the first creation account (dunno if you noticed, but in chapter 2 God makes people before plants and animals in a sperate creation account) are literal(ish), and directly concerned with earth and its vantage point of the universe. This type of interpretation says that God put too much water on earth when he first made it, so he took some away and dispersed it among the stars (which he made later, so I dunno how that works).

As posted in another thread:

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament..... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night..... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.

- Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis

Basil the Great, in the fourth century, attacked people like Augustine who thought the waters were symbolic by saying, "Since, then, Scripture says that the dew or the rain falls from heaven, we understand that it is from those waters which have been ordered to occupy the higher regions... Let us understand that by water water is meant; for the dividing of the waters by the firmament let us accept the reason which has been given us. Although, however, waters above the heaven are invited to give glory to the Lord of the Universe..." Hexaemeron 3.8,9

If you read the whole section, you will see that Basil thought of 2 layers of water. There was the layer that rain came from, as he describes in part 8, and then there is the layer above that, the sky, which is above the heavens. And by water, water is meant.

A plain reading of the text in creationist fashion demands a layer of water around the earth.

Girlee said:
Why would you think I could explain anything God does?
I am tossing out a possible explanation.
I'm not trying to make that passage "scientific". I'm showing how science cannot prove that passage false. Science has found water throughout the universe. Which means there IS water up there. I don't see how this passage has been proven false.

Nobody in here is trying to prove the passage false, but rather a literal-historic interpretation

Girlee · Jul 11, 2010

Siyha said:
My original intent in this thread was, as pointed out early on, an "inverse poe." I was trying to make an argument against creationism that refuted something creationism didn't actually claim, similar to how creationists constantly refute evolution based on things evolution doesn't claim.

The idea then is that people have to defend themselves from holding a view they don't, imposed on them from the other side.

That being said, why don't creationists claim there is a physical layer of water above the sky? So say that "the universe is filled with water, therefore it is still acurate" it applying quite an ad hoc approach to the verse, since all other things in the first creation account (dunno if you noticed, but in chapter 2 God makes people before plants and animals in a sperate creation account) are literal(ish), and directly concerned with earth and its vantage point of the universe. This type of interpretation says that God put too much water on earth when he first made it, so he took some away and dispersed it among the stars (which he made later, so I dunno how that works).

As posted in another thread:

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament..... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night..... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.

- Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis

Basil the Great, in the fourth century, attacked people like Augustine who thought the waters were symbolic by saying, "Since, then, Scripture says that the dew or the rain falls from heaven, we understand that it is from those waters which have been ordered to occupy the higher regions... Let us understand that by water water is meant; for the dividing of the waters by the firmament let us accept the reason which has been given us. Although, however, waters above the heaven are invited to give glory to the Lord of the Universe..." Hexaemeron 3.8,9

If you read the whole section, you will see that Basil thought of 2 layers of water. There was the layer that rain came from, as he describes in part 8, and then there is the layer above that, the sky, which is above the heavens. And by water, water is meant.

A plain reading of the text in creationist fashion demands a layer of water around the earth.

Nobody in here is trying to prove the passage false, but rather a literal-historic interpretation

The first account of creation is how it happened.
In the second one, man already existed. God created creatures out of the earth and brought them to Adam to name. Basically, instead of bringing them from wherever they were, he made another one out of the earth to bring to Adam. There are not two accounts of creation. There is one account of creation, then one about naming the creatures.

gluadys · Jul 11, 2010

Girlee said:
The first account of creation is how it happened.
In the second one, man already existed.

Not according to Genesis 2:5 & 2:7

Siyha · Jul 11, 2010

Girlee said:
The first account of creation is how it happened.
In the second one, man already existed. God created creatures out of the earth and brought them to Adam to name. Basically, instead of bringing them from wherever they were, he made another one out of the earth to bring to Adam. There are not two accounts of creation. There is one account of creation, then one about naming the creatures.

God formed the beasts of the earth, not "new" beasts of the earth.

Man also exists before any shrub or plant had sprouted. There is no localized language of in this specific area there was no plants. There was none anywhere, because God hadn't sent rain yet. In Genesis 1, there is no mention of the plants needing rain, they just are.

Mallon · Jul 12, 2010

Siyha said:
God formed the beasts of the earth, not "new" beasts of the earth.

Man also exists before any shrub or plant had sprouted. There is no localized language of in this specific area there was no plants. There was none anywhere, because God hadn't sent rain yet. In Genesis 1, there is no mention of the plants needing rain, they just are.

Indeed. Genesis 2:19 is pretty clear that God made "every" beast and bird (not just some) after the creation of Adam.

Girlee · Jul 12, 2010

gluadys said:
Not according to Genesis 2:5 & 2:7

let me correct what I am saying a bit there--I typed that fast and didn't check what I said.

The first chapter, and start of the second chapter of Genesis is the account of creation.
The second part of verse 4 talks about the need for water on the Earth. This is starting a new topic. Water becomes important and symbolic throughout other parts of the Bible, so it is emphasized here. Nothing can grow without water.
Then it digs deeper into the creation of man. If this was meant to be another account of the creation story, then the stars and sun and moon would have been mentioned, which they are not.
It is emphasizing how the animals were made from the dust of the ground, just like Adam. Yet, they were not like Adam--he did not find a suitable mate in any of them. Yes, they came to be like him, but they were not enough like him. So he needed to have a mate made for him, out of him. The flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones. When he saw the woman, he knew he had his mate.
The first story is everything in general, including man. The second story elaborates on when man and woman were created, after first stressing the importance of water.
So, no, there are not two different creation stories, and one does not contradict the other.

Papias · Jul 12, 2010

Girlee wrote:

there is--there are clouds in the sky.

OK, so if a little water, dispersed as either clouds, or as vapor in a cloudless sky still counts as "water", then there is continuous "water" from the ocean, over the land, up into the stratosphere, because the amount of water vapor near the surface is usually more than in the upper atmosphere.

So, if we go by Girlee & Smidlee's approach that the "water above the firmament" refers to water in the atmosphere, then that directly contradicts Gen 1:6 (where God separates the water above from the water below), because if there is "water" existing from the ocean all the way up into the atmosphere, then the water was NEVER SEPARATED.

Obviously, the separation of the water making "dry" land appear shows that traces of water vapor, clouds, and such aren't what is meant as "water", or there would be no such thing as "dry land".

Since "water" clearly means "a volume of liquid water", and because, as Smidlee pointed out, rain makes it "obvious" to the ancient observer that water comes from above. This makes the "floodgates" and Job's storehouses of snow make perfect sense.

In response to the OP - wow, that does make sense! I never thought about the blue sky - having been told about the scattering of blue light since I was a child. But on thinking about it, I can see that without that knowledge, and especially if I had grown up seeing lakes, oceans, and land, it would be completely natural to see the sky as a clear, hard dome holding back water, which would be further confirmed (if that were even needed) by rain.

Of course the sun is inside that dome - it would look blurry otherwise, having to shine through the water first.

Of course the stars are inside that dome - we might not be able to see them at all otherwise.

Of course the moon is inside that dome - it would look blurry otherwise.

Of course the moon shines by it's own light - how could it get light from the sun when the sun is down, otherwise?

Of course an upheaval could make the little star globes fall to the ground - they are only attached up there anyway.

Of course the stars aren't that big, because they look tiny, and are inside the clear, hard dome, which we know can't be that far away or the rain would never get to us.

and so on.

Thanks, I never realized how obvious the blueness of the sky was as clear evidence of the water above the firmament to the ancient observer.

Papias
P. S.
Girlee wrote:

So, no, there are not two different creation stories, and one does not contradict the other.

So were humans made before or after plants? Before or after other (non-human) animals?

See? They contradict each other if read literally, just as they contradict the real world (The real world is part of God's revelation) if read literally, just as a lot of the song of solomon or Jesus metaphors contradict the real world if read literally. Those who cling to a literal reading are claiming that the Bible is a source of contradiction, and hurting Christianity.

Siyha · Jul 12, 2010

Girlee said:
let me correct what I am saying a bit there--I typed that fast and didn't check what I said.

The first chapter, and start of the second chapter of Genesis is the account of creation.
The second part of verse 4 talks about the need for water on the Earth. This is starting a new topic. Water becomes important and symbolic throughout other parts of the Bible, so it is emphasized here. Nothing can grow without water.
Then it digs deeper into the creation of man. If this was meant to be another account of the creation story, then the stars and sun and moon would have been mentioned, which they are not.
It is emphasizing how the animals were made from the dust of the ground, just like Adam. Yet, they were not like Adam--he did not find a suitable mate in any of them. Yes, they came to be like him, but they were not enough like him. So he needed to have a mate made for him, out of him. The flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones. When he saw the woman, he knew he had his mate.
The first story is everything in general, including man. The second story elaborates on when man and woman were created, after first stressing the importance of water.
So, no, there are not two different creation stories, and one does not contradict the other.

I agree with you on the function of the second account as being more specific about man. Its not a creation account of the whole world, but it is of man, plants and animals, happening in an order that is contrary to Genesis 1, thus showing that at least both accounts can't be true as they are written literally.

Girlee · Jul 12, 2010

"So were humans made before or after plants? Before or after other (non-human) animals?

See? They contradict each other if read literally, just as they contradict the real world (The real world is part of God's revelation) if read literally, just as a lot of the song of solomon or Jesus metaphors contradict the real world if read literally. Those who cling to a literal reading are claiming that the Bible is a source of contradiction, and hurting Christianity. "

I was just talking about that in my post.

Humans were made after plants.
In both accounts, it mentions plants BEFORE humans.
In the second one, yes, no plants were on the earth, but then the earth was flooded (which would have made the plants grow). This is talked about BEFORE he made the human. It does talk about him making all types of plants grow in the Garden, but the Garden is different from the entire earth. Also, God could very easily have made things grow before and after he put man in there--there is nothing saying He did not.

And the animals--I talked about that, too. He created animals before man, as in the first creation account. The second story talks about how he HAD formed the animals out of the ground, saying that man and the animals were formed in the same way. However, even though they were formed in the same way, they were not a companion. Which is why Eve was created.

So, no, they do NOT contradict each other if read literally.

I definately believe there are metaphors and such in the bible, and not everything should be taken literally. But, as for these two chapters, even if read literally, there is no contradiction as people keep trying to say there is!

Girlee · Jul 12, 2010

Siyha said:
I agree with you on the function of the second account as being more specific about man. Its not a creation account of the whole world, but it is of man, plants and animals, happening in an order that is contrary to Genesis 1, thus showing that at least both accounts can't be true as they are written literally.

I disagree there is anything contrary.

addo · Jul 13, 2010

Siyha said:
sure they do.

The bible also says that God put the stars in this "expanse" called "sky" (Genesis 1:14-15). So if you are planning on finding this 'water' you'll have to go 'above' the stars (if that's possible), but ... the problem is that we could not even get our of our solar system, least our galaxy.

juvenissun · Jul 13, 2010

Siyha said:
Creationism claims that the sky is actually made of water, but there is very strong evidence in the scientific community that its not made of water.

No. It was, not is.

This should end the argument according to the level of your reasoning.

Siyha · Jul 13, 2010

juvenissun said:
No. It was, not is.

This should end the argument according to the level of your reasoning.

Please read threads before posting in them. Discussion has already addressed your issue.

Papias · Jul 13, 2010

OK, here is Gen 2:4-8

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Girlee wrote:

Humans were made after plants.
In both accounts, it mentions plants BEFORE humans.
In the second one, yes, no plants were on the earth, but then the earth was flooded (which would have made the plants grow). This is talked about BEFORE he made the human.

It mentions plants as not being there before it mentions humans. You are saying that because it says they were not there, that you conclude they were there? Hmmm...

So this mist is what you are referring to as "the earth being flooded"? Sorry, genesis 2 doesn't say the earth was flooded - it says there was mist that watered the ground, and that both water and humans were needed for plants. That's what "and" means, that both are needed. There is is a word that means "either is sufficient", that word is "or". Note that "or" is not the word used in this passage.

It does talk about him making all types of plants grow in the Garden, but the Garden is different from the entire earth.

OK, Gen 2:9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food.....

Sure, after God made man, plants may have grown outside the garden - seems like they did, but that doesn't help your argument that gen 2 describes plants existing before humans.

Also, God could very easily have made things grow before and after he put man in there--there is nothing saying He did not.

Yes there is something saying He did not. Gen 2:5 above says exactly that there were no plants. You have to contradict the text yourself to make your argument. That's very different from interpreting it metaphorically, which preserves the respect for Genesis as inspired text.

Papias

AnswersInHovind · Jul 13, 2010

Papias said:
OK, here is Gen 2:4-8

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Girlee wrote:

It mentions plants as not being there before it mentions humans. You are saying that because it says they were not there, that you conclude they were there? Hmmm...

So this mist is what you are referring to as "the earth being flooded"? Sorry, genesis 2 doesn't say the earth was flooded - it says there was mist that watered the ground, and that both water and humans were needed for plants. That's what "and" means, that both are needed. There is is a word that means "either is sufficient", that word is "or". Note that "or" is not the word used in this passage.

OK, Gen 2:9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food.....

Sure, after God made man, plants may have grown outside the garden - seems like they did, but that doesn't help your argument that gen 2 describes plants existing before humans.

Yes there is something saying He did not. Gen 2:5 above says exactly that there were no plants. You have to contradict the text yourself to make your argument. That's very different from interpreting it metaphorically, which preserves the respect for Genesis as inspired text.

Papias

Nope.

philadiddle · Jul 13, 2010

AnswersInHovind said:
Nope.

Papias · Jul 13, 2010

AnswersinHovind wrote:

Nope.

Wow, what a cogent and convincing evidence based point!

It's almost as detailed as Girlee's

I disagree there is anything contrary.

Why do creationist points so quickly degrade to simply plugging one's ears and saying "la la la la, I can't hear you! la la la la"?

I guess "Nope." is easier to type.

Oh, and on a side note, are most readers familar with the convicted criminal and creationist, Kent Hovind? The facts speak for themselves. His bio is here: Kent Hovind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Papias

Creationism Falsified!

Newbie

Drumming circles around you

Newbie

Puppy Surprise

Newbie

Legend

Puppy Surprise

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Listening to TW4

Puppy Surprise

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Puppy Surprise

Listening to TW4

AnswersInHovind

Guest

Drumming circles around you

Listening to TW4

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency