Originally posted by GraftMeIn
I agree science isn't trying to disprove the Bible. The problem is that some people say God could not have created the world, or life. and therefore they think the bible is incorrect.
Originally posted by GraftMeIn
So who wrote the first version? what were the manuscripts that it was translated from?
I agree science isn't trying to disprove the Bible. The problem is that some people say God could not have created the world, or life. and therefore they think the bible is incorrect.
but it's the same theory two things with no life equaling life
Like I said the order things were created according to myths is meaningless if they aren't in an order that can support life.
Plant life above ground needs light in order to grow. therefore it was needed before plants could grow on land.
As long as there was light no sun would be needed for plants to grow, I can grow a plant under artificial light without the sun, some plants need full shade to grow in, so they don't need sunlight they just need some form of light.
again I would need refrences to what other religions say the way things were created are, something written before the Bible, or in the same era.
Originally posted by Freodin
Do you really want an answer to this question? Could you answer the same question regarding "Genesis"?
What relevance does it have?
Back to von Ranke-Graves: (again, my translation, so the titles of the books may vary)
Sources: Pliny, History of Nature, IV,35 and VIII, 67 , Homer, Illias XX, 223
(There are more, referring to parts of the myth that I didn´t quote)
So what? Even the oldes sources for this do not claim to have been written by eyewitnesses - in fact, there is no way to get a date for creation from this myth.
But the same is true for Genesis.
And because there are people who make wrong statements, you have to counter it with an equally wrong statement?
Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
No it isn't. That's why it's a straw man.
How can that be a problem for an omnipotent being? Myths aren't meaningless. But they only tell us something about humans, never about science.
It was clear that you were talking about all life.
So you admit that an omnipotent being can create everything in basically any order it wants?
Why in the same era? And did you study all other creation myths?
Shai-Hulud
It's no different than you comparing the Bible to other religions.
Because there is order in the way God does thing, He is not a God of chaos. When he does something it is for a reason, and there is always order in the way he does it.
Then why did you bother even asking me the question you did?
As long as there was light no sun would be needed for plants to grow, I can grow a plant under artificial light without the sun, some plants need full shade to grow in, so they don't need sunlight they just need some form of light.
Did I say that? please point out where I said that God created things in some strange order that doesn't make any sense.
If I had studied every other creation myth would I be asking for information on what they say, or where they come from?
guess I should accept everything you say without question since you know so much more than I do, about all of it.
the reason for asking for something from the same era, or earlier is so it can be proven to have been in existence long before any of us, and backed up by other materials relating to it.
Genesis has been translated by a group of experts in language, there are original texts it has been translated from, even the dead sea scroll translations back up much of what is written in the Bible.
This still doesn't tell me when it was written, Isn't there one book like the bible? are there any ancient scrolls or texts, in existence like the ones the bible has to back it up? And why should I trust one persons translation about what it says?
What makes Genesis the same as the myths from other religions? I think there is a huge difference between one God that is eternal, and many Gods that were born.
Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
Would you be so kind to explain why one religion can't be compared to another?
What if another creator god isn't an orderly god? That one could create in whatever way he wanted.
Because you keep displaying gross ignorance on the subject, and yet insist on rejecting ideas of those who do know what they're talking about.
Right there. If he created plants and light before the sun there is no logical order.
I want to know how you are able to reject all other creation myths, except yours if you don't even know them. You seem to be suggesting that yours is the only one in the correct order, but since you don't know the others that doesn't make sense.
You still need to explain why your religious non-answer is any better that that of other religions. (third time.)
Noone expects you to belive eveything scientists say just because they say it. But we do expect you to know what you're talking about if you reject it. And you obviously don't.
Why does the creation myth have to be as old as creation itself? It is god telling us about it right? Why couldn't he have given it a lot later?
Are you claiming that genesis is older or as old as man?
Shai-Hulud
As far as the greek mythology goes, it was debunked ages ago. and untill you can provide me with solid scientific proof that the Bible is wrong then I will continue to believe what it says. So far science tells me it's correct in the way it states the order of things were created.
Are you a scientists? have you studied every field of science? Do you know all that there is to know about everything?
I never claimed to be a scientist. I asked questions about it, So far the scientific facts that you want to use to try and debunk the Bible with have no proof, they are only theories that still lack any type of scientific proof.
Now if science doesn't prove that plants need water and light in order to grow on the earth, please show me where it proves this.
I'm talking about the plants that grow on the earth, not seaweed, and stuff that grows underwater.
I didn't say they couldn't, I merely asked why comparing two religions was any different than comparing two rocks, to any other two things that contain no life.
Why is it so important to you that I need to know about all these other religions?
this brings us back to the two rock theory again.
You are the one rejecting anything from the Bible
I'm sorry I didn't relize that you were an expert, and had read every creation story that exists, or that you read the entire Bible, and every book about science there is, and understand each one so completely. Therefore you must be much more knowledgable than I am about any of this. I guess I should accept everything you say without question since you know so much more than I do, about all of it.
He created light before he created the plants is what I said, Do you think the only possible source of light comes from the sun?
I was not talking about the other creation myths, I was talking about the Bible. So why do I need to be worried about these other myths?
Are you a scientist? Excuse me if I'm wrong but I think I metioned that it is possible for science, and the Bible to support each other.
The only part I questioned was how you get life from two things that contain no life at all.
and untill you can provide me with solid scientific proof that the Bible is wrong then I will continue to believe what it says
As far as the greek mythology goes, it was debunked ages ago.
So far science tells me it's correct in the way it states the order of things were created.
Originally posted by GraftMeIn
Freodin,
Are you a scientists? have you studied every field of science? Do you know all that there is to know about everything? Are you also a cosmologist? did you go to school and learn these things?
What makes you any better when you say the Bible comes from the Dead Sea scrolls? seems to me you don't know what you're talking about there. The dead sea scrolls weren't found untill long after the Bible had been written, They have been proven to be 1000 years older than the earliest known manuscripts that the Bible came from, and they contain most of the books of the old testement.
Just so you know, I have a degree in Horticulture, and have passed the Master Gardening course. I know what a plant needs to grow. It needs water, and a source of light, does it have to be sunlight? no it doesn't, plants are grown using artificial light all the time.
I never claimed to be a scientist. I asked questions about it, So far the scientific facts that you want to use to try and debunk the Bible with have no proof, they are only theories that still lack any type of scientific proof.
Now if science doesn't prove that plants need water and light in order to grow on the earth, please show me where it proves this. I'm talking about the plants that grow on the earth, not seaweed, and stuff that grows underwater.
Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
You do understand the difference between rocks and reacting chemicals do you?
You do know the difference between the Bible and other religions don't you?
You rejected all other creation myths for the biblical one. I'm assuming that you have a reason to do so. I want to know that reason.
It has to do with the fact that you want me to compare God with a bunch false Gods that are nothing more than evil spirits trying to take his place.
What does that have to do with anything? EXPLAIN THIS.
Because the answer presented there does not make sense. Because the answer there doesn't explain anything. Because it's obviously wrong. Because there is plenty of evidence to accept the other explainations. Now I want you to explain why you accept creationism. Why do you reject all other creation myths but not yours.
You have no idea how a debate works do you?
Why would one bother to create a second source of light? And how much sense does it make to create the planet before the sun it orbits. Of course you can explain that away with an omnipotent being, but it simply isn't logical or efficient.
Because I want to know why you reject them, and not the bible. You must therefore have found something in the bible that isn't in any other creation myth, or have found errors in all other myths.
I'm an engineer, and amateur scientist. And yes it is possible to interpret the bible so that it doesn't confilict with science. But never the literal interpretation.
And that's been explained to you about three times. You have never offered any questions or remarks about that.
Is that all? What do you want me to disprove? Just the literal interpretation of genesis, or a little of everything?
No it wasn't. It was no more unlikely than your mythology. People just stopped believing in it.
Quite probably for the fifth or sixth time. The sun has existed for about a billion years longer than life on this planet. You state exactly the opposite.
Shai-Hulud
Sure I understand the difference between rocks and reacting chemicals. I can toss two rocks into a toilet, they will clog it up. I can mix two reacting chemicals in a toilet and they will make it explode. Neither one is going to cause a form of life to emerge. unless there's an angry alligator in the sewer, that I just annoyed.
You do know the difference between the Bible and other religions don't you?
and reading about archeological finds that back up the contents of the Bible
Not to mention the fact that I have felt Gods touch, I can feel his spirit in me, and I have heard his voice,
I can clearly see that the Bible is not just made up
and why are you asking me the same question twice?
debate isn't simply telling someone else they don't have a clue what they're talking about
If you don't think I should use the Bible as a source, then maybe you shouldn't use science as your source of backing up your claims.
How do you know for sure that's the age of the sun, and that our dating methods are correct?
The Bible doesn't say that the earth sits in one spot and never moves. It could be possible that God created these set them in place, and then they began to revovle, and why doesn't it make sense to create the planet before the sun? Why does the sun need to come first?
I already answered this see above, this is the third time in the same post you asked me this question.
The bible states that towards the end the days would be shortened, or else we would never survive. this itself could explain why the standards of time differ according to the Bible and science.
Originally posted by Freodin
One of the problems we seem to have in this discussion is that you keep attacking position that none of us ever build.
I´m not a scientist as a profession, but I have studied Mathematics and Phyiscs and I have some understanding of Chemistry and Astronomy.
I don´t have to know everything to know what I am talking about.
I did never claim that plants don´t need water or sunlight.
That is also not a point of discussion.
Scientific fact: all the light that the earth recieves comes from the sun.
Scientific fact: the light that the sun sends out is a product of the fusion process running there.
Scientific fact: the amount of energy that is send from the sun - of which just a tiny amount reaches the earth - cannot come from any other process than a nuclear one - and it requires a huge mass.
Scientific fact: there are no remains observable anywhere in the solar system that would give evidence for the existance of a source of light other than the sun.
So, if there was a source of light before the existance of the sun, it is not observable by natural science.
You may believe that it originated from God - but it is NOT backed by scientific fact.
Scientific fact: two masses like earth and sun orbit their common center of gravity.
Scientific fact: because the suns weight is much higher than that of the earth, this center of gravity is close to the center of the sun - close enough to say that earth roughly orbits the sun.
Scientific fact: the spontanous creation of a mass with the weight of the sun would cause tremendous forces to act upon the earth - causing massive disruptions.
You may believe that somehow God cause these effect not to happen, or that he protected the earth from the effects - but that is also NOT backed up by scientific fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?