Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 76 of 319 (492036)
12-26-2008 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by jaywill
12-25-2008 12:04 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
quote:
The Big Bang describes the inflation and expansion of the universe, not the creation.
An agnostic scientist, Robert Jastrow, wrote this
Who cares? Are you seriously trying to run the argument from authority past me? It doesn't matter what any scientist, no matter how prominent, thinks. The only thing that matters is what the data says. The Big Bang is not about the creation of the universe. It is about the expansion of the universe.
If you want to talk about the creation of the universe, you need to move beyond the Big Bang and go into the field of cosmogenesis. What do you have to say about the various instantons that have been theorized? Tuork-Hawking is interesting. I seem to recall that there was a discussion here (Message 170) where we talked about it. ICANT showed himself to be a quote-miner in the process.
quote:
This scientist describes the Big Bang not just as expansion and inflation but as "the origin of the world."
And he would be wrong. Or, at least more accurately, you are misquoting him. We've already shown that ICANT will misquote any source to justify his preconceived notion in an attempt to play argument-from-authority. Are we about to do the same with you?
Question: What was Jastrow speaking of at the time he made this statement? Was he actually talking about the Big Bang or was he instead talking about how scientists approach their work? Where'd you pull this quote from? Given the formatting, it appears to have come from Crossexamined.org, a right-wing, creationist web site. Was it? Be honest.
You certainly didn't pull it from the original source, God and the Astronomers. If you had, one would wonder why you didn't pull up this nugget from his book:
Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. All the details differ, but the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.
See, the issue is not that Jastrow is contradicting me (and he isn't.) It's that you don't understand what he is trying to say. You're cherry-picking quotes you don't understand, pulled from another web site rather than from the original source, and are expecting me to just roll over and play dead.
Jastrow is simply pointing out that the universe had a beginning. He wants there to be wonder in that fact, and I am hardly arguing against that. But you are attaching much more emotional and supernatural significance to his use of the phrase, "origin of the world," or at the very least a very different significance to it.
But since you seem to want to play argument-from-authority, here's what Turok has to say:
What does it mean for a physicist to describe the beginning of time? Try and think of space and time together as Einstein taught us to do, and to think how the big bang began. You can think of space and time as constituting the surface of a cone. The cone is place vertically with its sharp tip down. Time runs up the cone: space runs around it. Time and space end at the sharp tip. The tip is 'singular' in mathematical terms, because it isn't smooth, and if this were a model of the universe we would find our equations break down there. The universes found by Hawking and me look like the cone but the tip of the cone is rounded out, replaced by our 'instanton', which is smooth. If you were sitting in the instanton you would be confused about what is space and what is time because all directions along the surface of the rounded cone are horzontal at the bottom. In effect the 'timeline' direction has rotated into a 'spacelike' one. This is just what we need to explain how time began. In effect the distinction between space and time is blurred and space then contracts to a point and disappears. But crucially the equations of physics work everywhere.
So since Turok says Jastrow is wrong, where does that leave your argument?
quote:
This particular scientist founded NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. I assume he knows something about cosmology.
Indeed, he does. The question, however, is do you? You clearly didn't read his book, so what on earth makes you think you understand the quote-mine you plagiarized from someone else? What the book you're plagiarizing a quote-mine from is trying to do is show why scientists came to accept the Big Bang Theory. It was not always so. Going back to Lematre and Hubble, there was plenty of resistance. It's the reason Einstein developed a cosmological constant: He thought the universe was neither expanding nor contracting. However, gravity would necessarily cause such a universe to collapse. The cosmological constant resulted in the universe maintaining its state. But, eventually the evidence piled up and even Einstein admitted that he had made a huge blunder.
quote:
I guess I'd beging by saying the air is in the human ear?
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what is in your ear in order for you to be able to hear sound underwater. The sound has to travel from the source to your ear first. If that medium is liquid, what does it matter if your ear has air in it if your claim is that sound requires air to travel through?
And even more irrelevant, the air in your ears has nothing to do with your ability to hear. Your eardrum vibrates (even when you are underwater and your ear canal is full of water) which sets in motion the three bones of your ear (which were evolved from bones of the reptilian jaw which we can directly show you in the fossil record) which sets up a vibrational pattern in your cochlea which is lined with sensory cells that go to your brain to be processed.
Sound is a compression wave of a medium. That's why sound doesn't travel through vacuum: There is no medium to fluctuation.
quote:
If not air then, in the universe to carry the sound of Bang, then liquid doesn't seem to make the language problem go away.
You're missing the point. Didn't you read my post? You quoted it...didn't you bother to peruse it? The answers you are looking for are contained in it. In fact, they are the very next sentences from the one you quoted just now:
Sound is the fluctuation of a medium. At the time of the Big Bang, the universe was not empty. In fact, all matter was condensed into a tiny space. I dare say if you had audio equipment that could have survived, there would have been quite a lot of sound.
But on top of that, "bang" refers to more than just sound. Again, you must deal with context. When a word has multiple meanings, you cannot simply substitute one for another and expect to have a legitimate interpretation. To do so is the logical error of equivocation.
Instead, since we are dealing with a scenario described by language, you have to use the tools of language to interpret it. The reason "bang" is used is because it is a useful descriptor for what happened: A tremendous explosion in multiple senses. Not merely a throwing out of matter and energy into space but also a huge expansion of space, itself.
As Hawking put it, the Big Bang happened everywhere at once.
quote:
My point is that the expression Big Bang could be well considered as scientifically imprecise language.
Why? What part of "rapid expansion of energy" is not encompassed by the word "bang"? What part of "everywhere" and "resulting in the universe that we see today" is not encompassed by the word "big"? You seem to be implying that science is not allowed to use metaphor when coming up with a name for a field.
quote:
Such language of imprecise expressions according to modern standards are also found in Genesis.
Huh? You're comparing a pithy statement that is a reference for an entire field of study to a couple minutes of oral tradition?
quote:
I haven't yet been able to get my mind around space expanding into ... ?, that which is not space.
The fact that you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true. I can't wrap my mind around Linear A (and neither can anybody else), but I do know it is an actual language. I understand the frustration. I really do. At my undergrad, they made you take fundamental courses in all of the other fields no matter what your major: Math, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering. After the basics, there is what we students called the "gatekeeper." It was the class where you came to realize what your major really should be. If you got through it with ease, then you should consider continuing. If it was hell, then perhaps you should reconsider. For math, it was "Fundamental Concepts" (which dealt with Real Analysis), For physics, it was Electricity and Magnetism. For chemistry, Physical Chemistry. For engineeing, Systems. You bang your head against all the walls and find the one that leaves the smallest or prettiest stain.
Physics and I do not get along. You know those rides in the amusement park where you get in a room, it spins around, and the floor drops down with everybody sticking to it? I don't. Low coefficient of drag, I suppose, but I go down with the floor. Should've been a hint. My abilities in math had me understanding things intuitively, but actually applying it was the problem. Doing the math was a snap...figuring out which math to do was the problem.
So I, too, have a hard time visualizing the concept of space expanding when there is nothing to expand into. But that's what the observations show. The balloon metaphor is helpful, but it's just a metaphor. That isn't the way it's really happening.
quote:
Again the limitation of language has to be accounted for.
Nice try, but that's my argument. Why use a phrase that specifically intimates a literal, 24-hour day when you didn't mean that? Especially when there are plenty of other phrases that will indicate an indefinite period of time?
quote:
I don't know why the same realization cannot be had in reading a revelation about the origin of the world in Genesis.
Because if I say to you, "It took a day, and by 'day,' I mean a literal, 24-hour day," there is no way to interpret that to mean that it took more than 24 hours. The phrasing used in Genesis 1 is not metaphorical to mean more than 24 hours. The phrasing used specifically intimates a literal, 24-hour day. If the author didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why use a phrase that specifically means that when there were so many other phrasings that could have been used?
quote:
It seems some Bible skeptics use leeway for modern Cosmology but cut no slack to the writer of Genesis 1.
Incorrect. Instead, it seems that there are people who are aware when metaphorical language is being used and thus analyze the statement as a metaphor and when literal language is being used and thus analyze the statement literally.
quote:
Again - Big Bang? What was Big? What defines Big there? Space is being somehow created ?
What part of "resulting in the entire universe as we see it today" is not encompassed by the word "big"? Do you watch Mythbusters? It's a show on the Discovery Channel where they take various nuggets of "wisdom" and put them to the test: If you really urinate on the third rail, will you get electrocuted? (No. Your urine does not remain in a steady stream but rather immediately separates into droplets, thus not allowing any current to flow back to you.) If you dropped a penny off the Empire State Building, would it kill somebody on the ground? (No. The terminal velocity of a penny combined with its miniscule mass is not enough to truly damage someone. Oh, it'll hurt, but it won't cause any serious damage.)
They were testing a myth about cleaning out the inside of a cement truck with dynamite. The myth states that a cement truck for whatever reason was left alone with a load of cement in it which hardened. The owner used dynamite to bust the cement into chunks. So, they got a cement truck with cement in it that had dried and then started using dynamite to see what effect it would have.
They started off with a cherry bomb. As you might expect, not much happened. They kept on increasing the amount of explosive used until they finally got some chunks to come off of the churners inside the barrel. They found that 1 pound of black powder would get some chunks off the walls, but nothing from the floor; a stick-and-a-half of dynamite seemed to do better. With the myth out of the way, they decided to do what they always do whenever anything includes the use of explosives: Dial the knob to 11.
They drove the cement truck out to a blasting range, having to warn everyone around for miles, get a couple miles away themselves, and have the FBI rig up the explosive device: 850 pounds of explosives. The truck literally vanishes from the screen (though there are pieces...strangely, one tire survives without a puncture). As Jamie Hyneman said, "This has got nothing to do with the myth. This is just a big boom."
An explosion that happened everywhere at once and resulted in a universe billions of lightyears across is not accurately described by the word "big"?
Now, that's a metaphorical statement since "big" is a subjective term. But that space is created is not metaphorical in any sense. It is literally what happened.
quote:
Or are you going to tell that space is compressed and expanding but not being created?
No. It is literally being created.
Out of nothing.
Into nothing.
I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding it, but that's what is happening. We can directly measure it.
quote:
Either way, I think I have to make allowances for the limitation of human language.
Indeed. But the problem is not one of not having words to describe what you want to but rather using words that specifically and directly mean the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. If the authors of Genesis didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why did they use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day?
quote:
Light coming into being on Day #1 and light bearers coming in at Day #4 is not implausible to me.
Indeed, but the problem is that the earth gets formed the day before, on day 3. And thus, we have a few massive problems:
  1. The light on earth only comes from the sun and other stars, which won't come into being until the next day.
  2. The fruit-bearing plants get created on day 3, before the sun. If these "days" are going to be something other than literal, 24-hour days, how did these plants survive since the only light that comes to the earth is from the sun and other stars. Starlight is not sufficient for plants to grow in, so where did this other light come from since the sun isn't around?
  3. The earth is made before the sun which is completely backwards. The sun came first.
So we've gone from the frying pan into the fire. We've got an inverted process that will guarantee the destruction of all life on the planet being claimed to create life.
quote:
It is not less plausible than space compressed or space expanding beyond the boudary of which space does not exist.
Only because you don't understand the science. You seem to think that because you don't understand it, nobody else does, either. Have you bothered to try? No, reading a web site or a mass-market book won't help you to understand it. I mean have you bothered to actually get yourself to school to formally study physics so that you can understand the theory?
If not, what makes you think you are capable of figuring it out on your own? We've already determined that you won't even bother to read the original source material. What makes you think you can understand what it means given that you don't even know the context in which it was said?
quote:
It is not less plausible than space compressed or space expanding beyond the boudary of which space does not exist.
You're comparing a formalized study of the universe complete with actual results to wishful thinking regarding literary analysis? I'm still awaiting an answer to my question:
If the authors of Genesis didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why did they use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day?
quote:
And I see God as wanting to get across to the maximum number of people
That doesn't answer the question. If you didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day? Are you insinuating that Hebrew has no way to convey a longer period of time?
quote:
not an exhaustive discription of how He created everything, but an accessible general and economical explanation.
Irrelevant. I'm not asking for equations. I'm simply asking why the text uses a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day when the intention was to convey a length of time much longer than that.
quote:
If He wanted to give all details then maybe there would have been 20 books just to describe the nature of water. The minute details that went into the measurements of the tabernacle, ark, garments and pristly utinsils show that the author of Genesis, Exodus certainly was intelligent enough to master technical details.
Irrelevant. I'm not asking for equations. I'm simply asking why the text uses a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day when the intention was to convey a length of time much longer than that. Are you insinuating that Hebrew has no way to convey a longer period of time than a day?
quote:
I am not playing at anything.
Yes, you are. You're trying to say that the "light to rule the day" might be something other than the sun and the "light to rule the night" might be something other than the moon, regardless of the fact that the stars are mentioned immediately after.
quote:
Of course it is a reference to the sun. The sun was one of the light-holders. You can see light without being able to locate the origin of it, its holder, its bearer.
Irrelevant. The question is not the existence of light. The question is where the light came from. The only light that strikes the earth is light from stars, the closest one being that really big one we call the sun.
Therefore, since there were no stars until the fourth day, after the earth was formed, where did the light striking the earth come from?
quote:
The RcV brngs this out in the translation because the light of verse 3 is a different word from light bearers in verses 14-19.
Incorrect. The word used is 'owr. It gets inflected, but the root is the same. You're trying to imply that there is a huge syntactical difference between 'owr and me'owr, aren't you?
At any rate, this is irrelevant. Since the only light that strikes the earth comes from stars and there weren't any stars until the day after the earth came into being and since you are saying that "day" in this context doesn't mean a literal, 24-hour day despite a phrasing that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day, where did this light come from?
quote:
Once again, the Recovery Version brings out in the translation that the word for light bearer Day 4 is not the same for light on Day 1
Incorrect.
quote:
Have you ever noticed that the moon or sun behind cloud can give the sky a general glow of light?
Irrelevant. Actually, it proves my point: The general glow only exists because of the light coming from the sun/moon. If you were to take the sun/moon away, there would be no glow.
Since the sun/moon did not exist until after the earth came into being, where was this glow coming from?
quote:
It is no less plausible then "space expanding" or "space inflating".
We have actual evidence of that. Where did the light striking the earth for a period of more than 24 hours come from that wasn't starlight? The only light that strikes the earth is starlight. So for a period greater than 24 hours, there was a "glow." Where did this "glow" come from since there were no stars?
quote:
No, "made" does not have to mean that the sun, moon, and stars were created out of nothing on the fourth day.
I never said they did. Stars are not made out of nothing. They are made out of hydrogen. But hydrogen doesn't glow.
So we're left with my original conclusion: There is no question as to what was going on: The creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
But no light strikes the earth that isn't from stars. So where did this "glow" come from? Since you're claiming that these "days" are longer than 24-hours, how on earth did plants survive? The only light good enough to get them to grow is sunlight and sunlight wouldn't become availabe until day 4 which is decidedly longer than 24 hours from day 3.
quote:
You cannot insist on that sense in the Hebrew.
Since you're trying to force a meaning on me that I wasn't using, then I can insist upon anything I wish. There is no question as to what was going on: The creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
You will note that I didn't mention how they were made...just that they were. This is in accordance to my previous statement that I am not asking Genesis to provide equations, just to mean what it directly says: If it didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day?
quote:
The word is also used for trimming a beard or trimming finger nails. It is used for preparing a meal.
And none of those are intended here. Remember, that's my argument: Context will tell you what is meant. The phrasing used makes it clear: There was no sun, moon, or stars before the fourth day. God made them on the fourth day. He specifically declares that he is going to make them after the third and before the fifth.
Genesis 1:13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
If you're going to abandon the text, just say so.
quote:
You do not have to insist that the only meaning there is that, before the fourth day no sun existed.
Actually, I do because that's what the text says. There was no sun, moon, or stars until the fourth day.
Since no light strikes the earth except that from the stars which did not exist until the fourth day, where did the light come from that allowed the plants to live that came into existence on day three?
quote:
The dry land came up from under the water and was made to appear on the third day.
But before that, there was no dry land. That's in direct contradiction to geology: Dry land first, water second.
quote:
Other creation accounts in the Bible show God stretching forth the heavens before laying the foundation of the earth.
So you're saying that the Bible can't even gets its own story straight? If Zechariah contradicts Genesis, why are you being so insistent upon Genesis being correct?
Of course, Zechariah says no such thing. The passage you quoted simply states the actions god engaged in. It does not prescribe an order.
quote:
If here stretching forth the heavens includes not only space but thge atronomical bodies in the heavens, then this passage would mean the stars were stretched forth before the earth's foundation was laid.
Incorrect. You get to choose which way you're incorrect: Either Zechariah contradicts Genesis or Zechariah doesn't prescribe an order. If I tell you that I performed in Cabaret and directed Six Characters in Search of an Author, can you tell which one I did first?
quote:
No problem at all. It could come from the sun.
No, it can't. The sun doesn't exist. It won't exist until the fourth day. Therefore, light from the sun cannot be the source for the light striking the earth on the third day. And since the only light that strikes the earth comes from stars, where did this "glow" come from?
quote:
But as it was unvieled to the prophet in a series of revelatory visions, he didn't see where it was coming from until the fourth day.
Irrelevant. The "revelation" is that the sun didn't come into existence until the fourth day. So where on the third day was the light coming from? The only light that strikes the earth is from starlight. With no stars, how could there be any glow?
quote:
Okay, assuming that all geologist /astro physicists agree with your statement, it still does not render Genesis factually incorrect.
Hmmm...Genesis says water first, then dry land. Genesis says earth first, then sun.
Geology says dry land first, then water. Astronomy says sun first, then earth.
Yeah...those can be reconciled. "First" doesn't actually mean "preceding." "Second" doesn't really mean "following."
quote:
Regardless of whether the earth was first solid land or ocean over land
Incorrect. That is the precise issue under contention.
quote:
there is room in the original language to understand that it BECAME something else.
Incorrect. The phrasing is specific and unambiguous. That's why we know that Genesis 1 means literal, 24-hour days. If the authors didn't mean a literal, 24-hour day, why use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day?
The phrasing of Genesis is quite clear: The earth did not exist ("without form and void") and yet there was water ("god moved upon the face of the waters.") That water existed until the dry land poked out of it ("let the dry land appear.")
There is no "becoming something else" because the description is clear and specific: An earth covered in water and then land poked up out of it. That's in direct contradiction to geology.
quote:
Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies wrote this about the Big Bang.
Irrelevant. You don't understand what he was trying to say, mostly because you never actually read Jastrow's work.
Instead, you plagiarized a quote-mine.
At any rate, he's wrong. Strange how people who don't listen to people who claim that they "cannot hope to discover" something find exactly what it is that people claim cannot be found.
Hint: Your final quote is from the 80s. Hawking and Turok published their findings in the 90s. Jastrow died this year. Can you find a quote of his that gives his opinion regarding the new work that was done after he made his claim of impossibility? That'll require actually reading his work rather than relying on plagiarized quote-mines, though.
Again, you have fallen for the argument from authority: It doesn't matter what Jastrow says. It only matters what he can prove. And the fact that people have come up with testable theories regarding cosmogenesis means he couldn't prove it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jaywill, posted 12-25-2008 12:04 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 12-27-2008 1:02 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 12-27-2008 1:37 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 91 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2008 6:18 AM Rrhain has replied

Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2656 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 77 of 319 (492048)
12-27-2008 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Rrhain
12-24-2008 12:46 AM


quote:
That may be, but for the purposes of this discussion, don't you think that even if you are trying to give an understandable description of the process, you'd at least get the details you do mention correct?
You may have a point, but one thing to keep in mind is that the goal of the Genesis account was not to give an understandable description of the process as much as it's goal was to give an understandable description of who was behind the process.
quote:
Surely the order in which things happened would be correct even if the details of those things are grossly simplified, yes? To use your ATM example (and pet peeve: The "M" in "ATM" stands for "machine"..."ATM machine" is redundant), you wouldn't say that you get your money first and then put your card in the slot. Even with the most overly simplified description of what "money," "card," and "machine" are, the order in which things happened should be correct: You slide your "card" in the "machine" and then receive your "money."
Again, this assumes that the purpose of the account is to provide an accurate description of the process of creation instead of the creator. Genesis wasn't written that way, nor was it translated down through the centuries with that goal in mind and no, it was not translated and passed down perfectly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2008 12:46 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by lyx2no, posted 12-27-2008 1:10 PM Itinerant Lurker has not replied
 Message 87 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2008 5:17 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 78 of 319 (492050)
12-27-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Rrhain
12-26-2008 11:02 PM


That's a hefty reply. I will not be able to deal with it as I'd like this week.
But for starters.
Who cares? Are you seriously trying to run the argument from authority past me? It doesn't matter what any scientist, no matter how prominent, thinks. The only thing that matters is what the data says. The Big Bang is not about the creation of the universe. It is about the expansion of the universe.
Okay. If you don't care what that scientist says, we can also say we don't care what you say. You kick Jastrow to the side. Why can't we kick you off to the side?
If you want to ....
If you want to not care what Jastrow says, then whats good for the goose is good for the gander. We'll just discard your opinion on the matter too.
Why shouldn't I simply ignore your opinion then?
Oh, because you're right of course and he's wrong ?
I'm not through yet.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2008 11:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by lyx2no, posted 12-27-2008 1:15 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2008 5:26 AM jaywill has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 79 of 319 (492051)
12-27-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Itinerant Lurker
12-27-2008 10:13 AM


The Inerrant Word of God
Surely if we are arguing against the inerrant word of God we should be allowed to assume that He won't screw it all up. Who follows a god whose standard is "good enough for government work"?
Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling
Edited by lyx2no, : Clarity & Grammar.

Don't do that Dave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 12-27-2008 10:13 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 80 of 319 (492052)
12-27-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jaywill
12-27-2008 1:02 PM


He Explained Why
"Why shouldn't I simply ignore your opinion then?"
He explained in the post you just ignored, "Who cares? Are you seriously trying to run the argument from authority past me? It doesn't matter what any scientist, no matter how prominent, thinks. The only thing that matters is what the data says."
Follow the data, not the man.
Edited by lyx2no, : Punctuation

Don't do that Dave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 12-27-2008 1:02 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jaywill, posted 12-27-2008 1:42 PM lyx2no has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 81 of 319 (492053)
12-27-2008 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Rrhain
12-26-2008 11:02 PM


Huh? You're comparing a pithy statement that is a reference for an entire field of study to a couple minutes of oral tradition?
Not really. From my perspective I am comparing human opinion to the oracles of God, a revelation.
me:
I haven't yet been able to get my mind around space expanding into ... ?, that which is not space.
thou:
The fact that you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Vica Versa with you and the first chapter of Genesis.
I can't wrap my mind around Linear A (and neither can anybody else), but I do know it is an actual language. I understand the frustration. I really do.
And I understand your frustration with saying on Day 1 God said "Let there be light" but light holders or light bearers are said to be made on Day 4.
It is not impossible.
At my undergrad, they made you take fundamental courses in all of the other fields no matter what your major: Math, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering. After the basics, there is what we students called the "gatekeeper." It was the class where you came to realize what your major really should be. If you got through it with ease, then you should consider continuing. If it was hell, then perhaps you should reconsider. For math, it was "Fundamental Concepts" (which dealt with Real Analysis), For physics, it was Electricity and Magnetism. For chemistry, Physical Chemistry. For engineeing, Systems. You bang your head against all the walls and find the one that leaves the smallest or prettiest stain.
That is kind of interesting.
I was a Computer Science major. I think the weed out course was Compiler Design.
Anyway. That is all I can write right now.
I think God's job in Genesis is to communicate the essentials of the origin of the world in a way accessible to the greatest number of people.
J. Pye Smith wrote in his Lectures on the Bearing of Geological Science upon Certain Parts of the SCriptural Narrative - A philological survey of the initial sections of the Bible. (Gen i,1, to ii,3)
1. "That the first sentence is a simple, independent, all-comprehending axiom, to this effect: that matter, elementary or combined, aggregated only or organized, and dependent, sentient, and intellectual beings have not existed from eternity, either in self continuity or succession, but had a beginning; that their beginning took place by the all-powerful will of one Being, the self-existent, independent, and infinite in all perfection; and that the date of that beginning is not made known.
2. "That at a certan epoch, our planet was brought into a state of disorganization, detritus, or ruin, (perhpas we have no perfectly appropriate term) from a former condition."
3. "That it pleased the Almighty, wise and benevolent Supreme, out of that state of ruin to adjust the surface of the earth to its now existing condition, the whole extending through a period of six natural days."
John Harris likewise writes in The PreAdamite Earth
"On the whole then, my firm persuasion is, that the first verse of Genesis was designed, by the Divine Spirit, to announce the absolute origination of the material universe by the Almighty Creator; and that it is so understood in other parts of the Holy Writ: that, passing by ab indefinite interval, the second verse describes the state of our planet immediately prior to the Adamic creation; and that the third verse begins the account of the six days work.
If I am reminded that I am in danger of being biased in favour of these conclusions by the hope of harmonizing Scrioture with Geology, I might venture to suggest, in reply, that the danger is not all on one side. Instances of adherence to traditional interpretations chiefly becase they are traditional and popular, though in the face of all evidence of their faultiness, are by no menas so rare as to render warning unnecessary. The danger of confounding the infallibility of our own interpretations with the infallibility of sacred text, in not peculiar to a party. "
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2008 11:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2008 5:41 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 82 of 319 (492054)
12-27-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by lyx2no
12-27-2008 1:15 PM


Re: He Explained Why
Follow the data, not the man.
Right. And interpreting the Data as Jastrow has every right to offer his interpretation.
Who cares? Some of us care what he has to say ... following the data, interpreting the data, looking to where the evidence leads.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by lyx2no, posted 12-27-2008 1:15 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by lyx2no, posted 12-27-2008 2:14 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 86 by lyx2no, posted 12-27-2008 9:09 PM jaywill has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 83 of 319 (492055)
12-27-2008 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jaywill
12-27-2008 1:42 PM


A Piece of Cake
God, and his pal Santa, clearly set up all the evidence to indicate to us that The Big Bang and Evolution were major parts of the method of choice for setting up a place for us to stay. If the words don't match the evidence what does one do?
"I didn't eat the cake, Cap'n*." I say with icing all over my face.
One isn't allowed to interpret the data as so much piffle. One has to explain it.
"Digg 'Em” hit me in the face with the cake tin and ran off with the rest." I say, as the blood seeps to the surface of the icing on my chin.
*Cap'n Crunch
”Digg 'Em the Sugar Smacks frog.
I run with an eclectic crowd
Edited by lyx2no, : I got lost between my title and my story.
Edited by lyx2no, : Consistency and grammar.
Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar (How am I doing Buzsaw?)

Don't do that Dave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jaywill, posted 12-27-2008 1:42 PM jaywill has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 84 of 319 (492057)
12-27-2008 3:58 PM


Hebrew Mythology
It just seems to me that this is a discussion that can only boil down to faith. Personally as a Christian I think it is a mistake to put too much faith and emphasis on the Bible. Even the Bible itself says that Jesus is the "Word" of God.
Genesis tells us that God created and if you like even talks about some form of an evolutionary process. Whether that all came from other mythologies or not in my view isn't germane.
I've posted this before, but I like what CS Lewis writes about this.
quote:
Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology - the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.
Miracles Ch 15 CS Lewis

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 319 (492062)
12-27-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Rrhain
12-24-2008 8:21 PM


Rrhain writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Earth/planet, without form, came before seas and dry land were formed.
That's what the text says. Are you denying the text?
No, of course not. As you should recall, your message did not distinguish from planet Earth and earth/soil/dry land.
Rrhain writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Genesis 1:2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
If you're abandoning the text, then just come out and say it.
No, of course not. The waters were separated and essential evaporation was consummated before the seas and dry land were formed.
Rrhain writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Geologists weren't there to state, empirically, one way or the other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant. The rocks themselves were there. All we have to do is examine them and they will tell us what happened. That's why we know that the dry land came first and the water came second: The rocks say so. Are you claiming that the rocks are wrong?
I have yet to hear a rock talk but I'm aware of a lot of conjectured water geology.
Wiki writes:
probably...... according to present models and simulations....... may also have........ generally agreed....... it can be supposed that during the accretion of the planetesimals into planets........ it is in many cases assumed .........What is however unclear........
The large quantity of Earth's water may be explained, if..........
The greatest proportion of today's water may have been synthesized

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2008 8:21 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2008 5:49 AM Buzsaw has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 86 of 319 (492065)
12-27-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jaywill
12-27-2008 1:42 PM


Re: He Explained Why
quote:
Right. And interpreting the Data as Jastrow has every right to offer his interpretation.
The message from professor Robert Jastrow is idle pondering, not an interpretation of data. Furthermore, Jastrow offered little if anything. Nowhere does he say "Looks like God did it after all." He says some scientist are going to have a hard time resolving their need for answers with the possibility that some answers will never come. Big Woop! At best he enables us to infer that we shouldn't dismiss God out of hand. And this he does primarily in the final sentence, a quote from E. A. Milne, that need not be taken as anything but metaphor.
If it was Jastrow's position that science is revealing God he should have stated it clearly. Just as God should have stated clearly how he made the world. Your interpretation of someone else's interpretation of Jastrow's ponderings being used to interpret the inerrant word of God is a bit thin.
quote:
Who cares? Some of us care what he has to say ... following the data, interpreting the data, looking to where the evidence leads.
The "Who cares?" comment was Rrhain's, and his point was that the comments you were interpreting as scientific opinion (as indicated by your having offered Jastrow up as a noted scientist. Einstein's opinion of rainy days is not an official weather report.) were nothing of the sort. Your answer strongly indicates you have failed to understand. Narrative is not the type of material one should be using to inform ones scientific understanding of the natural world. I go to a Catholic High School and I'd not be allowed to get away with is this kind of support for a research paper.

Don't do that Dave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jaywill, posted 12-27-2008 1:42 PM jaywill has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 87 of 319 (492184)
12-29-2008 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Itinerant Lurker
12-27-2008 10:13 AM


Itinerant Lurker responds to me:
quote:
one thing to keep in mind is that the goal of the Genesis account was not to give an understandable description of the process as much as it's goal was to give an understandable description of who was behind the process.
But if the process described is completely wrong in every aspect, how can we possibly trust what it describes about who was behind it?
quote:
Again, this assumes that the purpose of the account is to provide an accurate description of the process of creation instead of the creator.
Incorrect. This assumes that you want your audience to trust you about what you say. If your description is flawed at every level about what we can independently verify, how does that earn our trust about the things we need to take on faith?
quote:
Genesis wasn't written that way, nor was it translated down through the centuries with that goal in mind and no, it was not translated and passed down perfectly.
If it got that wrong, what else did it get wrong?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 12-27-2008 10:13 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 88 of 319 (492187)
12-29-2008 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by jaywill
12-27-2008 1:02 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
If you don't care what that scientist says, we can also say we don't care what you say. You kick Jastrow to the side. Why can't we kick you off to the side?
Who said you couldn't? I certainly know I didn't. I don't expect anybody to take anything I say to be true simply because I say so. That's the argument from authority and if I insist it doesn't apply to your arguments, I certainly don't insist it apply to mine.
I've provided you my data and my process. Please, make a response to them, but actually respond to the data and process. As is so often the case, I wind up asking the same question over and over and never get an answer.
quote:
Why shouldn't I simply ignore your opinion then?
Because in a discussion with integrity, you pay attention to what the other person says and respond to it. You certainly don't accept it to be true just because the other person said it.
When are you going to answer my questions?
quote:
Oh, because you're right of course and he's wrong ?
No, because you plagiarized a quote-mine and I provide complete context. You can ask me anything you want about my data and my process and I will do everything I can to answer your questions. You will avoid and evade, despite my directly asking you to answer a plain question, clearly stated.
I certainly don't ask you to take my statements to be true just because I say so. I ask you to look at my data and process and respond to them with more data and process.
What do you think of the Turok-Hawking instanton?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 12-27-2008 1:02 PM jaywill has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 89 of 319 (492188)
12-29-2008 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jaywill
12-27-2008 1:37 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
From my perspective I am comparing human opinion to the oracles of God, a revelation.
You do realize that we do not have the original texts, yes? Where does this "revelation" opinion find justification? At any rate, you didn't really answer the question. You're denigrating the field simply because you don't like the pithy statement that is used to describe it. No discussion about any actual failures of the field...you just don't like that it's called the "Big Bang."
As if that were a reason to discard the data and process.
quote:
Vica Versa with you and the first chapter of Genesis.
And considering that I have shown you to have misquoted the text, what does that do to your conclusion about my misunderstanding?
quote:
And I understand your frustration with saying on Day 1 God said "Let there be light" but light holders or light bearers are said to be made on Day 4.
Who said I was frustrated? I simply asked you a question. So far, you haven't answered it. How many times do I need to ask you before you do?
The only light that strikes the earth comes from stars. Stars weren't made until the fourth day. Plants do not live without light from our closest star, the sun. Plants were made on the third day.
Where did the light come from and how did the plants survive since they require the sun and there was no sun? If we assume a literal, 24-hour day, then going for 24 hours without sun isn't too much of a concern. But if we go with your claim that a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour doesn't doesn't actually mean that, then you're going to have to explain how they survived without the sun that lets them live.
Here's one thought: Plants were created at the very end of the third day and the sun was created at the very beginning of the fourth day. This would mean the plants would only have to survive about eight minutes in the dark (the amount of time it takes for sunlight to get to the earth).
But that's an answer I came up with. I need to know what the answer is that you came up with. That's why I keep asking you the same question: You haven't answered it.
Where did this light come from?
Be specific.
quote:
I think God's job in Genesis is to communicate the essentials of the origin of the world in a way accessible to the greatest number of people.
Same question I asked of Itenerant Design: Don't you think getting the order of events correct would be a huge part of "communicating the essentials"?
And on top of that, same question I have asked you at least six times: Don't you think that this would require using phrases that mean what you intend to convey? If the point was that it took longer than a literal, 24-hour day to do things, why use a phrase that specifically means a literal, 24-hour day? There are plenty of other ways to describe it so that people understand that it took a long time. Why use a phrase that specifically does not mean what you are trying to say?
You then follow up with the argument from authority. Twice. I didn't buy it the first time. I'm hardly going to buy it now.
But since you seem to like it, it would appear that you neglected to read your own source:
the whole extending through a period of six natural days.
the third verse begins the account of the six days work.
Both of these contradict your claim that the days were periods of time longer than 24 hours. Your sources are arguing against your claim. If your own sources contradict you, what does that do to your argument?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 12-27-2008 1:37 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 12-29-2008 7:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 90 of 319 (492189)
12-29-2008 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Buzsaw
12-27-2008 6:13 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
As you should recall, your message did not distinguish from planet Earth and earth/soil/dry land.
Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I gave the quotation from Genesis that tells of the creation of the earth:
Genesis 1:10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
The earth doesn't come into being until the third day. Until then, it is without form and void:
Genesis 1:2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
So if the text says that the earth didn't come into being until the third day and you deny it, that means you are denying the text.
quote:
The waters were separated and essential evaporation was consummated before the seas and dry land were formed.
No mention of evaporation is to be found. The separation of the waters didn't happen until afterward:
Genesis 1:6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And since that doesn't happen until the second day, we find that you are once again abandoning the text.
quote:
I have yet to hear a rock talk
That's because you don't know how to listen. Radiometric dating, for example, will have the rocks singing for you.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2008 6:13 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2008 5:18 PM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024