Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 136 of 297 (624795)
07-20-2011 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-19-2011 9:28 PM


Re: Pedantry.
I get that now, thanks!
But still, it boils down to Jo making assertions that are not supported with evidence or reasoned argument; as per forum rules.
The fact that we are in a science forum means the accuracy of the bible is not assumed a priori.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-19-2011 9:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 4:22 AM Larni has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 137 of 297 (624801)
07-20-2011 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Larni
07-20-2011 3:20 AM


Re: Pedantry.
quote:
The fact that we are in a science forum means the accuracy of the bible is not assumed a priori.
Knock-knock! You forgot to list which part of Genesis is not scientific. Pls prove your case!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Larni, posted 07-20-2011 3:20 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Larni, posted 07-20-2011 5:39 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 140 by Admin, posted 07-20-2011 6:38 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 138 of 297 (624802)
07-20-2011 4:36 AM


Butterfy:
quote:
Can you complete the following statement:
My scientific theory for the mechanism of the creation of light that occured when God said 'let there be light' is :
If you can, please do so.
I gave you mine. Now you give yours?

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-20-2011 6:20 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 139 of 297 (624806)
07-20-2011 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 4:22 AM


Re: Pedantry.
Knock-knock! You forgot to list which part of Genesis is not scientific. Pls prove your case!
None of genesis is scientific. As you're making the claim that it is it is up to you to provide evidence that it is.
That's the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 4:22 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 140 of 297 (624815)
07-20-2011 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 4:22 AM


Re: Pedantry.
IamJoseph writes:
quote:
The fact that we are in a science forum means the accuracy of the bible is not assumed a priori.
Knock-knock! You forgot to list which part of Genesis is not scientific. Pls prove your case!
You cannot assume a priori that the Bible is scientific unless proven otherwise. You cannot assume anything is scientific a priori unless proven otherwise. Something is science if it is in some stage of going through the scientific process of hypothesis, testing, peer review, replication and validation of predictions.
But this thread is not about whether the Bible is scientific. It's about the creation science theory of the origin of light. Any ideas you discuss in this thread must have scientific support, whether inspired by the Bible or not.
About your problems with English, ignoring your handicap in this area will not make it go away. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean everyone else has to, and certainly I won't. I will not allow your issues with communication to operate to the detriment of this or any thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 4:22 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 141 of 297 (624842)
07-20-2011 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 1:19 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
I made a pointed premise here [or was it some other thread?] the universe could not have initiated with a singular one entity, namely a irreducible, indivisible entity [a pristine 'ONE']. No one has yet responded to this issue, and instead deflected on numerous issues not connected with the point made at all - even my english has been attacked, and that I am not making any sense. It is a primal issue of discussion for the universe's occurence. Not very science minded responsa going on here. I'll pursue only little more than go buy some ice cream on the beach and talk with the magpies instead.
This might be why I have no idea what you are talking about half the time. And why i keep asking you to repeat points. It seems you have half of a debate on some other thread. It explains why you keep hammering away at a point that is irrelevent to the question.
Your point : "the universe could not have initiated with a singular one entity, namely a irreducible, indivisible entity [a pristine 'ONE']." has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. I do not even really understand what it is you are getting at. Your point is very nice. Would you like to make a point about the thread you are currently on?
You other point : "No one has yet responded to this issue, and instead deflected on numerous issues not connected with the point made at all - even my english has been attacked, and that I am not making any sense. "
Want to know why I have not responded to this point? Because it is not what this thread is about. Of course people are deflecting and discussing numerous issues not connected with the point you made. It is because your point does not address this thread.
I have not said anything about your english. I do have trouble understanding some of your points because the language used does not always make sense.
You say your point is a "primal issue of discussion for the universe's occurence." Thats great. Discuss it in some other thread. This thread is not about the occurance of the universe.
I don't make this premise in ridiculing mode or to downgrade science and great minds. I do say we cannot discard superior premises which are vindicated in thought and science because they are called theological:
Your point : "I do say we cannot discard superior premises which are vindicated in thought and science because they are called theological" The biggest mistake in this sentance is that you have a superior premise. As this thread is not even about your point and we have not been debating it, I have no problem with discarding it.
I know of no theology which can be discussed scientifically aside from Genesis. Genesis is not theological
You say in one sentence that Genesis is theology, then in the next that it is not.
Genesis : The Book of Genesis (from Greek γένεσις meaning "origin"; Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Brʾeiyt, "In the beginning"), is the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.
Theology : Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths.
The study of the Book of Genesis is theology. It does not matter if you see that the story fits with some science, the Bible is still a religious document and its study is theology.
Genesis is not theological, predates the notion, is not discussing names or belief in its creational descriptions, but appears varied from every theological writings - consider it and reject it scientifically minus the phobia: it is humanity's most mysterious document by impact, period of time and cencus. There is only creation and non-creation; scientifically, there is only a universe with a universe maker - or not. Period. Just two premises.
The first sentence in this paragraph does not make sense. As to your description of the Book of Genesis. The most mysterious document? This is a subjective opinion. I do not see any 'mystery' in Genesis. I dont know what you mean by it being mysterious by period of time or cences? That sentence does not make sense.
I did respond adequately and see my premise as correct, else we can discuss it forever. Its very clear, it could not go either way grammatically else it becomes superfluous [wrong reading]; the BEGINNING is directed at 'EVERYTHING' and when NOTHING yet was existant; all else appearing later. Later on we are told the definition of infinity in a most advanced and concise mode: this means not being subject to CHANGE. I ask that the stats in Genesis be seen from the POV the universe is absolutely finite as the preamble and protocol, as does Genesis, which is really incumbent in any discussion of the universe origins.
You have not provided any information to support your point. Gen 1.1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ". You say that there is something in these 10 words about the dimensions of the universe. There is no such information in that sentence. It says : In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. You could just as easily say that it says that God created the world purple, or out of jelly. It does not say that the universe is finite or infinite. But, as this point and with the rest of the paragraph, it is not relevant to the topic of this thread.
Unacceptable and a divergence. The Egyptian notes of first there was bubbling water, potter's wheel, etc is Zeus like myth as is its head butting deities and sun gods. The DAY & WEEK were introduced in Genesis, the world's first advanced alphabetical book: you are quoting an unstanding which is theorised as the text's inference only. This does not impact Genesis is declaring the universe as finite - the entire premise of the Hebrew bible which follows rests only on this factor - to the extent any other reading negates everything in its texts.
I was not putting the Egyptian myth forward as a challenge to genesis. You claimed that the Genesis story was the first time any faith had mentioned anything that matches science. You put forward the creation of light and the words "in the beginning" as you evidence of this. i supllied several prechristian stories that also include thses elements. you said that no other text had this information. I refute that, with references, multiple times.
You also complain that the myth says a potters wheel and bubbling water. Your creation myth is that God said it, so it happened. Neither of those suggestions is any more valid.
The Day and the week. When you say : The day and the week were introduced in Genesis, the worlds first alphabetical book. First of all, The Book of Genesis was not the worlds first book. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written circa 2500 BCE. I have to ask again. Do you believe that the first time that days and weeks were recognised was when genesis was written. I also do not understand your insistance that Genesis introduced the day and the week. Do you think that people did not notice that it got dark, then light, then dark again? Many prechristian civilisation had calendars. There is a Sumarian calendar of 12 months, 360 days was used prior to 2500 BCE. (source : 77Dragon adalah situs judi slot online dan judi online terpercaya dengan slot online, slot88, agen slot online,game slot, judi bola, serta live casino online) I dont really want to argue this point with you though because I dont care. I did not start a thread about that.
I am not using any of these stories to negate Genesis. You claimed that your creation story was unique. I supplied others with the same things. I dont care to use one theology against another. I am an athiet. I would use science to negate Genesis. But not on this thread as that is not what this thread is about.
Are you telling me that the Genesis creation myth is alligned with the current theories of how the univese formed?
Absolutely. This includes evolution, aphabetical books, the world's most accurate and oldest active calendar, the first human cencus, the first historically identifiable mountains, rivers, nations, genealogies and earliest recorded 'names' of speech endowed modern man. You neglect that all your postings of other nations fail to give a single historical item or figurehead which is historically traceable! I hope that responding to your posts in good manner is not a run away from the thread's topic, namely the first recording that light was the first product separated from the lawless void. Remarkably, Genesis says light appeared 'AFTER' laws were ushered in and is the first product thereafter. It makes good sense - how else can it be - it just happened is hardly science anymore
Wow. There are so many things wrong with what you have written here. Do you research any of your claims before you make them or do you just make them up as you go along?
You claim that the Genesis creation myth is alligned with current scientific theories regarding evolution, aphabetical books, the world's most accurate and oldest active calendar, the first human cencus, the first historically identifiable mountains, rivers, nations, genealogies and earliest recorded 'names' of speech endowed modern man.
Lets deal with them one at a time.
Evolution : Genesis says that God created all living things at one time. Evolutionary theory says that all current living things evolved from common ancestors. From single celled organisms to all of the planst and animals alive today. Genesis does not fit with current scientific theory.
Alphabetical books : This does not make sense in the sentence you have used. Care to rephrase?
the world's most accurate and oldest active calendar: What a load of shit. There are many older calendars. The Sumerian one I mentioned above is one. Also, if the calendar in Genesis was the most accurate in the world, why did Pope Gregory introduce the Gregorian calendar in 1582. Thats the one we use now by the way.
The first human census : Where the hell is a census in genesis??? Even if it was there it would not be the first. Egyption census' have been taken before 3000BCE. China have recorded census' prior to 2000BCE.
the first historically identifiable mountains, rivers, nations, genealogies : Are you serious? The Nile in Egypt has a recorded name in heiroglyphics from prior to the writing of Genesis. The Himalayas have been named in sanskrit prior to the writing of Genesis. I wont even deal with this claim any further as it is absolutely ridiculous. And of topic.
except for this bit : You neglect that all your postings of other nations fail to give a single historical item or figurehead which is historically traceable!
What do you mean historically traceable? Are the heiroglyphics that you can go and look at with your own eyes not traceable enough. You can view the original document.
the first recording that light was the first product separated from the lawless void (was in genesis).
The Egyptian Myth, the Apache Myth and the Babylonian Myth all record this, earlier than the writing of Genesis. I have provided the documentation and the source for this above.
I am going to ignore the next few paragraphs as I dont give a fuck about your interpretation of theology.
You contradict yourself in every sentence. Orbit inclines, rotations and revolving earth are conducive only to a critical focusing, whereby its light and darkness is conducive to anticipating life forms. Its not random by a ratio of 1 VS all other planetary bodies in the known universe. Of note, the text is contextual only to life forms and their sustainence, making only one reading coherent here.
Either we have a language barrier problem or you are out of your mind. I dont care which. I dont think it has anything to do with the thread so I will ignore it.
But are you also saying, aside from the misunderstanding, than Genesis is not saying something highly intelligent? Is the notion of light being pre-existing before its manifestation by any means, an unscientific premise? You have thus far rejected everything I said,with no acknowledgement of anything being right in genesis. I hold the exact reverse view.
Yes, I am saying that Genesis is not saying something highly intelligent. Saying that light preexisted before its manifestation by natural means is unscientific. I dont have to aknowledge that anything is right in Genesis. That is not what the thread is about. If you want to bang that drum, start a thread about it. There are plenty of scientists on this page and I would say a fair few creationists who will disagree with you.
The seed factor rules. Science, when examined close up, aligns only with Genesis.
No it does not. I will repeat. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence (Thanks again Mr Hitchens) Also, feel free to start a thread about this as it is off topic.
The next few paragraphs are more off topic crap.
Then we get to your theory:
My scientific theory for the mechanism of the creation of light that occured when God said 'let there be light' is :
V1. The universe was created or it came into being; it never existed before, nor anything universe contained ever existed before, not even laws or science existed before.
V2. The universe was inserted with laws [science], namely the formless was turned to form via directive programs which give new form products where there was none, with attributes embedded. No laws existed before this point; namely there was no science and no environment at one time.
V3/4. The new products became identifiable and separated from the lawless void by virtue of the laws. The first product was LIGHT [the term SEPARATED is used].
That is a description of the first four verses of Genesis.
THAT IS NOT A THEORY. Have you seriously wasted this much of my time to give me a discription of four verses of Genesis?
This is the original question for this thread:
Please supply the scientific theory of how God created light when he said "let there be light".
Please include the testable elements of the process by which light was created.
include evidence supporting this theory.
Can you see how you copying the first four verses of Genesis does not answer the question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 1:19 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 10:06 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 142 of 297 (624945)
07-20-2011 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 4:36 AM


Butterfy:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you complete the following statement:
My scientific theory for the mechanism of the creation of light that occured when God said 'let there be light' is :
If you can, please do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you mine. Now you give yours?
This is not a thread comparing theories. You have not supplied a scientific theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 4:36 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 143 of 297 (624962)
07-20-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Butterflytyrant
07-20-2011 9:46 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
quote:
This might be why I have no idea what you are talking about half the time. And why i keep asking you to repeat points. It seems you have half of a debate on some other thread. It explains why you keep hammering away at a point that is irrelevent to the question.
No, I cannot condone that. Fact is, the issue is not confusing at all, and none have taken it up, instead deflecting to other non-impacting issue - the only reason for any exhaustion I cited. Once more with feelings:
quote:
Your point : "the universe could not have initiated with a singular one entity, namely a irreducible, indivisible entity [a pristine 'ONE']." has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. I do not even really understand what it is you are getting at. Your point is very nice. Would you like to make a point about the thread you are currently on?
If you recall, the topic being the origin of light, and my view this was the first primordial entity in the universe. This strateched to fusion and energy as predating light, namely that light was a by product; I countered that light predates energy, and the means of making light manifest does not mean energy created light per se, that fusion or any other means could notproduce light if it was not pre-existant. The discussion then graduated to what was the first entity, and here I claimed that the first entity, which is widely seen as the BB could not have emerged via a singular entity but a complex construct of items, and that no action can occur only via a singular, ireducible and indivisible item. It is possible some inter-play may have occured of posts in this thread and one other thread, but the issue of a singulairity certainly impacts in this thread - it is not a varrying of the topic IMHO.
quote:
You other point : "No one has yet responded to this issue, and instead deflected on numerous issues not connected with the point made at all - even my english has been attacked, and that I am not making any sense. "
Want to know why I have not responded to this point? Because it is not what this thread is about. Of course people are deflecting and discussing numerous issues not connected with the point you made. It is because your point does not address this thread.
I have not said anything about your english. I do have trouble understanding some of your points because the language used does not always make sense.
You say your point is a "primal issue of discussion for the universe's occurence." Thats great. Discuss it in some other thread. This thread is not about the occurance of the universe.
The origin of light is not a result of fusion, as stated, nor that we do not know because laws broke down. Light predates all universal components and has attributes not shared by any other: thus it cannot be a derivitive or newly manufactured product of stars or any other means. If that is not relevent to this thread then what else impacts on light's origins more profoundly?
quote:
I know of no theology which can be discussed scientifically aside from Genesis. Genesis is not theological
You say in one sentence that Genesis is theology, then in the next that it is not.
No, I say instead that Genesis predates what became known as theologies, but is generically cast away in the same green bag. The new theologies have nothing to say on scientific premises. I am not using theology, instead I am saying that Genesis is humanity's primal scientific treatise, a mysterious document which confounds how a group of savage slaves and desert wanderors could come up with such a set of books; it gave birth to science and is the only ancient document which can stand up to state of art science today. One must argue Genesis on scientific premises, not in a disdain mode referring to all theologies, a common trend with athiests.
quote:
Genesis : The Book of Genesis (from Greek γένεσις meaning "origin"; Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Brʾeiyt, "In the beginning"), is the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.
Theology : Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths.
The study of the Book of Genesis is theology. It does not matter if you see that the story fits with some science, the Bible is still a religious document and its study is theology.
The universe being finite, light being the first product, the first separation of life forms and Monotheism - these are what propelled today's science. Calling it a theology does not change this fact. Show us some other theologies which have the same impact? There is a difference in a writings which depends on laws and those which deend only on NAMES. Genesis is not a belief based document; the terms religion and theology are relatively new.
quote:
I do not see any 'mystery' in Genesis. I dont know what you mean by it being mysterious by period of time or cences? That sentence does not make sense.
Period of time refers to 4000 years of Monotheism and still active; cencus refers to the first scientifically based account of a group of people, numbered in the millions, with scientific sub-totals of gender, ages, tribes and names - the first of its kind recorded in a book.
quote:
You have not provided any information to support your point. Gen 1.1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ". You say that there is something in these 10 words about the dimensions of the universe. There is no such information in that sentence. It says : In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. You could just as easily say that it says that God created the world purple, or out of jelly. It does not say that the universe is finite or infinite. But, as this point and with the rest of the paragraph, it is not relevant to the topic of this thread.
No, I never referred to dimensions or sizes, the point was about the universe being finite. When push came to shove, this premise was ultimately violated with novel manipulations: we don't know what laws existed then; energy can still be viable pre-universe, etc. This is why Genesis marks the mode of protocol: first up when discussing the universe, state your preamble which universe you are discussiung - a finite or infinite one; then let every subsequent factor of claim align with the preamble with no wavering or violations. It should be clear the novel violations stem from an utter inability to sustain what is not claimed in the preamble. Anything goes in an infinite realm - one does not even need laws: it was always so!
quote:
I was not putting the Egyptian myth forward as a challenge to genesis. You claimed that the Genesis story was the first time any faith had mentioned anything that matches science. You put forward the creation of light and the words "in the beginning" as you evidence of this. i supllied several prechristian stories that also include thses elements. you said that no other text had this information. I refute that, with references, multiple times.
You are of course incorrect in equating those verses with Genesis. The differences are striking, to the extent they become antithetical of each other, which you ignored. Sun gods and flat earths have been discarded only because of Genesis. We have not been referring to Egyptian or Hellenist versions of the universe in this thread: why is that?
quote:
You also complain that the myth says a potters wheel and bubbling water. Your creation myth is that God said it, so it happened. Neither of those suggestions is any more valid.
There is no resemblance of a potter's wheel, sun deities, divine emperors, bubling waters and head bashing dieties - with the premise of a finite universe followed by an array of processes which align with both science and logic. Today's science accepts evolution - this comes from Genesis, not from Darwin!
quote:
The Day and the week. When you say : The day and the week were introduced in Genesis, the worlds first alphabetical book. First of all, The Book of Genesis was not the worlds first book. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written circa 2500 BCE.
False. You are following a widespread falsehood. The epic has been re-dated, even still disputed of the new datings and is not a book [multi-page continuing narrative], not alphabetical and is most probably a substantial copy of the Hebrew bible. The epic is post-Mosaic and has no historical figures or points which can be verified as historical; the Hebrew wiritings do this pervasively.
quote:
I have to ask again. Do you believe that the first time that days and weeks were recognised was when genesis was written.
Yes. If you want further proof, only the days and weeks in Genesis is aligned with a scientifically designed calendar able to measure real time and seasons. Where is the babylonian calendar of days and weeks? I am certain the Babylonions contributed other forms of knowledge, but not those which appear in Genesis; the latter could not be a work of duplicity by virtue it contains new stuff, the most striking being Monotheism - a world and universe changer.
quote:
I also do not understand your insistance that Genesis introduced the day and the week. Do you think that people did not notice that it got dark, then light, then dark again? Many prechristian civilisation had calendars. There is a Sumarian calendar of 12 months, 360 days was used prior to 2500 BCE. (source : 77Dragon adalah situs judi slot online dan judi online terpercaya dengan slot online, slot88, agen slot online,game slot, judi bola, serta live casino online) I dont really want to argue this point with you though because I dont care. I did not start a thread about that.
All humans understand time and measure it in various ways, as do all animals also. This is an inherent mechanism. Methods used include hour glasses, the moon, weather patterns, seasons, etc. Egypt used the anoining of emperors to denote cycles of time, erasing all references to previous kings. The Hebrew calendar is 100% scientifically based and marks a striking new table, requiring exacting times of sunrise and sunsets in advance, and remembering specific festival anniversaries: if the sun was 12 p'clock high 3000 years ago on a certain day, the sun would again be at that point 3000 years later on that same day. This is a calendar different in kind. Today's Gregorian calendar comes from Genesis' calendar, replaces according to the birth of Jesus and Sunday as its new input.
quote:
I am not using any of these stories to negate Genesis. You claimed that your creation story was unique. I supplied others with the same things. I dont care to use one theology against another. I am an athiet. I would use science to negate Genesis. But not on this thread as that is not what this thread is about.
But you have not negated genesis in any way what so ever, even using the best of today's sciences. I pointed out the deficient portrayals of texts in your responses: light is the first product seperated from the void; the universe could not have emerged in a single entity; and everything in the universe operates via magestic laws - that is 100% science. Further, the deliberations of changes and osmosis does not impact there is nowhere else for any componenents to come from but the original construct; the implied variations of intent and purpose does not negate the requirement of anticipatory actions to usher in a result - like light and darkness, and water and land sepeations - these have no other reseasoning than to welcome life:
The dinner table is ready for the guests, applies. Jitterbugging quarks or an old man with a white beard called NATURE does not impact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-20-2011 9:46 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Coyote, posted 07-20-2011 10:17 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 145 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-20-2011 10:24 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 144 of 297 (624963)
07-20-2011 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 10:06 PM


LET THERE BE WATER (or not)
But you have not negated genesis in any way what so ever, even using the best of today's sciences.
If you include all of genesis, the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has been totally refuted. This refutation happened about 200 years ago, and the evidence since then has only accumulated that Noah's flood was a myth, and never really happened.
If you want to defend this, let's go to an appropriate thread. I can provide evidence for my statement from my own archaeological research.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 10:06 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 12:58 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 145 of 297 (624965)
07-20-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 10:06 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
I am going to assume we have a language barrier here.
Your continued claims that Genesis is a scientific document are laughable.
A supernatural entity is involved.
As soon as a supernatural entity, acting outside any testable field is involved, it is no longer science.
A fair few of your sentences do not even make sense.
I dont even know if we are having the same discussion anymore.
You are providing scripture as the basis of your claims. Scripture is not scientific fact.
Genesis is negated as scientific fact in the first line Gen 1.1 : "In the begining God created". There it is. Game over. By the fifth word, the scientific validity of Genesis is destroyed.
As soon as it says GOD CREATED, it is no longer scientific.
The God I have read about would be a lesser being if he had to act inside scientific laws and be scientifically testable anyway.
I prefer to think of him as Godlike. Not scientist like.
Feel free to reply to the rest of my post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 10:06 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:03 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 146 of 297 (624975)
07-21-2011 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Coyote
07-20-2011 10:17 PM


Re: LET THERE BE WATER (or not)
Its total humbug. The flood is a regional one, limited to 'NOAH'S POSSESSIONS AND HOUSEHOLD' [the text]; the descriptions of all the mountains being covered and the earth submerged is how it appeared to the people. In ancient times people never left their villages all their lives, and Tasmania never existed then.
Better you hail that writings for the first historical aerial view recording of Mount Ararat in its correct geographical location. No need to discuss this issue, but it shows how misrep this writings has been subjected to; its akin to the widespread belief the Hebrew bible is mythical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Coyote, posted 07-20-2011 10:17 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:03 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 147 of 297 (624976)
07-21-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 12:58 AM


Re: LET THERE BE WATER (or not)
The Hebrew bible is mythical.
Myth - a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
Yep, thats a myth allright. It is not a widespread belief that it is mythical. The defenition of the word myth describes the Hebrew Bible perfectly. Belief does not enter into the defenition. The defenition fits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 12:58 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:13 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 148 of 297 (624977)
07-21-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Butterflytyrant
07-20-2011 10:24 PM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Scripture and writings are the same - none are immune from providing evidence and logic. You can provide any scripture - as long as it meets a scientific, emperical criteria, it is fine. You have not shown anything I said as not evidenced. A universe maker for a universe is a 100% scientific premise; its reverse is not. You are assuming as if you have proven your criteria the universe cannot have a universe maker: you have not, so you cannot use this as a bona fide attack.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-20-2011 10:24 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:22 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 149 of 297 (624979)
07-21-2011 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Butterflytyrant
07-21-2011 1:03 AM


Re: LET THERE BE WATER (or not)
quote:
The Hebrew bible is mythical.
Myth - a traditional or legendary story
You are acting as a fool in a science oriented thread. Was King David a mythical figure? This was claimed by a host of scholars. Then came the Tel Dan find - and those scholars have never recovered from their shame.
One can find millions of evidenced historical, geographical, scientific and judiciary stats in the verses of the Hebrew bible - more so than any other book in existence. Over 70% has been scientifically proven. Try to nominate anything which can measure against those stats.
I have successfully refuted the claim a single entity can perform an action; that light is post-energy; which is the first alhabetical book; and that evolution is a direct lift off from a mythical writings. That's where its at.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:03 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-21-2011 1:33 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 163 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2011 9:59 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 150 of 297 (624982)
07-21-2011 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 1:03 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT.
What the bloody hell are you talking about?
Do you even know what this thread is about?
Scripture and writings are the same
If I knew what this was referring to it would be great.
You can provide any scripture - as long as it meets a scientific, emperical criteria, it is fine.
Why does this restriction not apply to you?
"God said" does not meet any scientific criteria. It is exactly the opposite!
What is so hard for you to undersatnd about this?
You have not shown anything I said as not evidenced.
2 things.
1. I have, many times. GEN 1.1 In the beginning . God created the heavens and the earth. <<< See that <<<< You have no evidence for that. You could not possible have any evidence for that.
2. It is not my job to provide a point of view on some random topic that you want to hammer on about that is barely related to the question. You have a question you have not come close to answering. It is your job, if you choose to answer the question, to provide evidence for your position. That is how it works. I asked a question, then you answer it with backing evidence. We can then debate that evidence. This is how it works.
A universe maker for a universe is a 100% scientific premise; its reverse is not.
What is the reverse? A universe without a universe maker? What is not scientific about that position. Read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. That book disusses how it is possible. I am not going into it as it is not on topic.
[qs] You are assuming as if you have proven your criteria the universe cannot have a universe maker: you have not, so you cannot use this as a bona fide attack.
Scripture and writings are the same - none are immune from providing evidence and logic. You can provide any scripture - as long as it meets a scientific, emperical criteria, it is fine. You have not shown anything I said as not evidenced. A universe maker for a universe is a 100% scientific premise; its reverse is not. You are assuming as if you have proven your criteria the universe cannot have a universe maker: you have not, so you cannot use this as a bona fide attack.
You are assuming as if you have proven your criteria the universe cannot have a universe maker: you have not, so you cannot use this as a bona fide attack.
I am not assuming this. I have not even discussed this! What the hell are you talking about??? I have not p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:03 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:31 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 153 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 1:35 AM Butterflytyrant 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