Genesis 1 Again

[Jazer]

We'll you are doing a very poor job of it. If we live in a fantasy world you don't expect us to give it up for your fantasy world.

That reminds me of when President Clinton spent so much time trying to get China to do something about human rights. China's reply was even if their criminal justice system leaves something to be desired they did not feel our court system was any more efficient. In fact they felt that our system was very expensive and something only a developed nation could afford.

So the bottom line is always: You don't like what we got, but what you got to offer ain't better and could be worse.

There was an interesting program on PBS about Henry David Thoreau. He was required reading in High School, but I never really understood him. Here on the board people try to say if you reject evolution then you should reject science. At the time of Thoreau the question was industrialization and the damage that was doing to our planet. So Thoreau went off and lived in the woods for 2 years 2 months and 2 days. His conclusion was we can live in harmony with our planet. The Hug a Tree people consider him to be the father of the green movement.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Into what?

Your world of some unknown process called abiogenesis; your world of phlogiston that never existed, a wonder drug that really brought wonderment to its users, 15 minutes to midnight on a doomsday clock, a computer reset that was supposed to bring the world to its knees, various ice ages, an unconfirmed and [pun] hotly debated [/pun] global warming process, overcrowding, resource depletion, radiotelescope arrays searching for a YOUHOO! from outer space, killer bees, Vioxx, tobacco, LSD, marijuana, oil spills, a downgraded planet, a billion-plus gaps in a misinterpreted fossil record, flying squirrels that glide, 'indivisible' units of mass that can be divided, a cat in a box that has scientists scratching themselves to death wondering the outcome, reports of a girl held in a special container for two years since birth, a return of a disease once thought eradicated, the discovery of a species of eel that was once thought extinct, bombardier beetles that don't bombardier, radon gas in the basement, lead paint on the walls, asbestos in the ceiling, an 'unsinkable' ship on the ocean floor, a Zeppelin blown to smithereens, an oil rig that blows up during a party of administrators celebrating the rig's safety and success, a moon formed six different ways with dust on it a fraction of depth initially computed, and finally, an entire crew fed to the marine life in the Pacific Ocean because of an unwillingness to delay liftoff?

Don't tell me what you guys believe is "science" and what we believe is "religion" and expect us to believe it.

See if this helps. I'll try and spell it out for you real nice and slow.

Science is based on observation and physical evidence.

Religion is based on ancient superstitious myths.

Here's the kicker though (and you may have a little trouble getting your head around this), they both change over time. Science changes as our detection methods improve, and religions change to reflect the current societies within which they function (e.g. in America we have decided that rape, murder and incest is bad, so American religions have moderated to reflect our laws, etc.).

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is based on observation and physical evidence.

That's right -- and what, pray tell, do you submit as 'observatiion and physical evidence' for abiogenesis?

 

[Davian]

Of course - there is evidence and models to support the various falsifiable scientific theories on the origin of the moon.

lol do you like accordion music?

As said in that other thread, they are not all on the same 'note'.

And can *any* of them provide a testable definition of 'God'?

Probably not.

If these scientific theories are falsifiable, then what's keeping you guys from falsifying them?

That has been done - that is why there are only a handful left. As we learn more, a few more will go, in time.

Now, can the same be said for theism? Are there any objective, external tests that can be applied to check the validity of religion? Of course there are, but theism (painting with an admittedly wiiide brush here) appears to be reluctant to fully embrace this process.

For instance, can *you* provide a testable definition for your concept of "God"? Or do you just sweep these types of questions under the rug and hope they go away?

 

[AV1611VET]

That has been done -

No, it hasn't been done.

There are six major non-Biblical theories as to how we got our moon.

If theories are supposed to be falsifiable, why aren't they falsified yet?

I think that's a valid question that deserves a good answer.

 

[Skaloop]

No, it hasn't been done.

There are six major non-Biblical theories as to how we got our moon.

If theories are supposed to be falsifiable, why aren't they falsified yet?

I think that's a valid question that deserves a good answer.

Because the evidence uncovered so far is inconclusive. Until something is found that exclusively points to a single hypothesis or is contrary to other hypotheses, we can't rule any of them out. So we will have to, as you used to be so fond of saying, keep looking.

 

[Davian]

Because the evidence uncovered so far is inconclusive. Until something is found that exclusively points to a single hypothesis or is contrary to other hypotheses, we can't rule any of them out. So we will have to, as you used to be so fond of saying, keep looking.

It could be that AV does not really understand what "falsifiable" means.

 

[AV1611VET]

It could be that AV does not really understand what "falsifiable" means.

Just don't call what you believe "science" and what we believe "religion" and expect us to play along.

 

[Gracchus]

Just don't call what you believe "science" and what we believe "religion" and expect us to play along.

My observations over several years indicate that it is very unlikely that you will "play along" with the truth.

 

[dad]

As explained in Genesis 1:1.
The “formless and empty” earth and the stars are included, but they are not included as being ‘made’ or ‘created’. They were simply mentioned as existing.
My Re-Creation theory does not cut them out, it simply explains them differently from your Different State Past theory.

I don't recall referring to any DSP, I was talking bible 101.

The verse was to show how God most likely revealed the creation events in Genesis 1 through visions since no human was present to observe the actual events.

Apparently by visions you mean that we can add in millions of years in any day or all as needed. Funny, did a lot of people butcher the obvious in Genesis and elsewhere before modern science started pretending it couldn't be true the way God gave it? I don't think so.

The days of creation week were determined by the existence of day-light, and the earth in its “formless and empty” state existed before the first day-light and therefore before the first day and therefore before creation week.

Of course, God hovered over, and we got light but from where exactly we don't know, we do know it was not the sun or mooon.

If the earth in its “formless and empty” state was not described in Genesis 1 as being “created”, and the stars were not describes in Genesis 1 as being “made”, this gives support to the idea that the six day creation events in Genesis 1 are not necessarily the original creation of the universe, but may simply be a re-creation of the earth’s biosphere since the earth and the stars appear to have been already existing.

Not really.


If He made all things from nothing, one assumes the stars he made are part of the all things. You seem to be adding another mysterious creation before creation. No can do.

The “great lights” mentioned here is referring to the “two great lights” (the sun and moon) as described in Genesis 1, not the stars.

I know, but the same verse included the stars.

The stars are only being described as ‘ruling’ the night along with the moon. They are not described as being 'made' during the six day creation events.

Man is described as ruling also....so? Man was made on a creation day too.

Of course they were -- in the same way a commercial bus can be ‘made’ into a private bus for your personal use.
Since the empty earth and the stars were not described as being 'created' or 'made' during the six day creation events, then the earth and stars could have existed for millions of years before those events.

Unsupportable stretch.

If my Re-Creation theory is correct this would explain why the earth appears to some of us as being young and to others as being old. It depends on our perspective. The earth’s biosphere is younger than the earth’s rocks.

Right, that was why the theory was cooked up. Nice try. But this merely shows you accept old age dating, and etc, which means you are in a no win position, fighting a defensive warfare. Been there, done that. ..Ashamed of the tee shirt.

If Science is focused on the formation of the earth’s rocks, then the earth from the perspective of Science will have the appearance of being old. Hence, 'Old Earth Creation', an idea which I also accept.

No. There is NO end to the compromises science will demand. It is a beast that must be confronted and defeated. They claim the earth was after creation for example, not before the sun moon and stars. They claim....well...ad infinitum.

YEC and OEC are compatible, IMO, if viewed from both perspectives as explained in my Re-Creation theory.

OK, we can let it ride....for now. Cheers.

 

[British Bulldog]

We'll you are doing a very poor job of it. If we live in a fantasy world you don't expect us to give it up for your fantasy world.

All we can do is try and help. Not everyone can be helped. Denial is a powerful defense mechanism. Any counsellor or therapist will tell you that.

 

[Davian]

It could be that AV does not really understand what "falsifiable" means.

Just don't call what you believe "science" and what we believe "religion" and expect us to play along.

Seriously? Do you not know what "falsifiable" means? That would explain your strawman-filled anti-science rant earlier.

 

[Belk]

Ask those 38,000 how we got our moon and watch them come together into just a handful of theories.

There may be 38,000, but just like a stretched accordion, you play one particular note and watch that accordion compress.

AV: The Moon was created 6004 years ago and age was embedded into it.

DAD: The Moon was created 6004 years ago but the physical laws where different.

Jazer: The moon was created when science says it was created but God still did it

That is just the three main creationist posters IN THIS THREAD. It will all come together, please.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV: The Moon was created 6004 years ago and age was embedded into it.

DAD: The Moon was created 6004 years ago but the physical laws where different.

Jazer: The moon was created when science says it was created but God still did it

That is just the three main creationist posters IN THIS THREAD. It will all come together, please.

Very simple question: How did we get our moon?

 

[Doveaman]

Science is based on observation and physical evidence.

If science is based on observation and physical evidence then why do scientists still get it wrong?

Are they delusional to the evidence and blind to the observation?

Although they can observe it and have evidence for it they still get it wrong.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

If science is based on observation and physical evidence then why do scientists still get it wrong?

Are they delusional to the evidence and blind to the observation?

Although they can observe it and have evidence for it they still get it wrong.

However mangled your understanding of the scientific method might be, it's still infinitely better than belief in ancient supertitions to describe our world and the cosmos.

 

[SkyWriting]

As an evolutionist, he should know this -- in my opinion.

Ya never know who's reading. Could be one or more interested persons in the world. One extra is enough. 1 x eternity is a very big number.

 

[SkyWriting]

However mangled your understanding of the scientific method might be, it's still infinitely better than belief in ancient supertitions to describe our world and the cosmos.

But the morality is way better, whereas the scientific method is null and void.
Nobody gets life in prison for praying. In theory anyway.

 

[Nostromo]

Okay, Baruch wrote it, but the point is the same: autographs vs. originals.

I think you're trying to be a little sneaky there, as you've changed the argument from originals vs translations to autographs vs originals. Shouldn't we value the original autographs above any mere translation?

Anyway... the points were:

(1) Every Bible ever printed with a copy of Jeremiah in it has a text in chapters 45-51 which is translated from a copy of the "second" original, or ORIGINAL #3.
I don't understand how that could be considered a problem, the subsequent copies contained the text of the original revelation at Jeremiah's request:
Jer 36:28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll...

(2) Secondly, NO ONE can overlook the fact that God didn't have the least bit of interest in preserving the "original" once it had been copied and its message delivered.
As above, the original wording was preserved, just not the material on which it was first taken down.

The 'problems' stated don't really exist. It's not the physical medium carrying the message that matters, it's the message itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not the physical medium carrying the message that matters, it's the message itself.

Did you see this thread? I noticed you didn't post in it.

In reading about entropy just now (symbolized by the letter H), I came across this definition:

A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
​

Thus I would like to submit this as the equation for the entropy of the Bible:

• ΔH(Bible)=0

In English, it simply states that the change [Δ] in the entropy [H] of the Bible equals zero.

Put another way, there is no change in the loss of information in the Bible.

The Telephone Game, which relies on entropy, does not apply.