It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Some people (the creationists in particular) get their science from the Bible. Let's see what kind of science is in the Bible.
In Genesis 1, we have the creation of the entire universe in six days about 6000 years ago. 6000 years is an incredibly short length of time for civilization to have been around, let alone the entire universe. The creationists fudge by saying 10,000 years, but the genealogy given in the Bible implies 6000 years, without gaps. Creation in only six days also conflicts with overwhelming scientific evidence. For example, we see distant galaxies as they were billions of years ago, it takes light that long to get to us. The creationists resort to light traveling much faster in the past, or to the creation of this light already on its way to earth.
We notice a couple problems with the events of creation. For example, on day one, we have the creation of light and dark, day and night. The sun and moon are not created until day four. Many Christians assume that the days of creation are actual geologic ages. Even then, the creation of grasses, and whales, and birds (which are all fairly recent in the history of life) are out of order.
In Genesis 3, we are told of Adam's sin. And we have the beginning of sickness, pain, death, misery, thorns, etc. There supposedly was no death before this, so all of the dinosaurs and trilobites were alive in Adam's time.
In Genesis 6 and 7, we have the world-wide flood of Noah. There is plenty of evidence for many regional floods, but not for a world-wide flood. We read of water covering all but the highest mountains. Where did all this water go? Noah's boat was too small to hold all of the species in the world. This Ark apparently did not carry fish, and most saltwater fish cannot survive long in fresh water, and most freshwater fish cannot survive long in salt water. After the flood, the various species dispersed to their current homes, with kangaroos hopping all the way to Australia, without any evidence of their trek.
In Joshua 6, we have Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, so the children of Israel can defeat the Amorites. To be accurate, he should have commanded the earth to stop spinning. To stop the earth's spin, and then start it up again, is a miracle of creation or flood caliber. It should have produced devastating effects, enough to wipe out life on earth.
On a smaller scale, we have bats and locusts (which walk on "all four legs") listed as birds in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. This sloppy classification may be all right for some purposes. But from a scientific point of view, it is silly.
In Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Isaiah, we find that God laid the foundations of the earth, and that it does not move (Psalms 104:5). This is one of the reasons that Galileo was convicted of heresy for saying that the earth moves around the sun.
In I Kings and II Chronicles, we find a circular vessel which has a circumference that is three times its diameter, implying that the author thinks that pi is 3. Pi is about 3.14159..., fairly close to 3. But for any practical purpose, 3 is a perfectly worthless value for pi.
The Bible is, of course, a wonderful source of religion and philosophy. But the authors were not knowledgeable scientists with 20th century information.
I have occasionally heard the following argument from creationists. This one is a quote from Life--How Did It Get Here? from the Watchtower people:
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
First of all, the above list is a significant rewording of the Genesis account of the creation. See Genesis chapter 1 for a comparison. In particular, the above list says, "sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse." Genesis says that God made these lights on the fourth day. Secondly, the Genesis account is clearly not in the order that science would predict, as day and night are created on day one, while the sun is created on day four (after plants were created). And thirdly, the above list is in a fairly logical order; a wild guess by any writer would have to be roughly in the above order. For example, one of the steps is "a beginning." Where would you put that step? I would make it step #1, wouldn't you? And I would probably make my list go from simple to complex, probably ending with man.
Since the writer of the Genesis account of the creation got some of the steps wrong, it is hard to say what the probability is that he got some of the steps right; certainly nowhere near one in 3,628,800, probably very close to one in one. The writer of the above list was certainly naive (or lying) to call it a "striking proof."
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
reply to post by MrXYZ
I noticed the source was www.jimloy.com... it has the name pseudo within its content have i not noticed in some of your previous posts that you accuse people of using pseudo scientific sights.
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
reply to post by MrXYZ
I was just thinking to myself you cant have it both of the ways but who am i to preach.
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
reply to post by MrXYZ
I noticed the source was www.jimloy.com... it has the name pseudo within its content have i not noticed in some of your previous posts that you accuse people of using pseudo scientific sights.
Originally posted by Kailassa
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
reply to post by MrXYZ
I noticed the source was www.jimloy.com... it has the name pseudo within its content have i not noticed in some of your previous posts that you accuse people of using pseudo scientific sights.
That site has pseudo in its name because it's replying to pseudo science.
Btw, what exactly is a "pseudo scientific sight"?
That's not something MrXYZ has ever accused anyone of using on this forum.
That's not a term MrXYZ has even used on this forum.
Of course you can always interpret stuff in ways that make it seem as if they are connected, and I have nothing against philosophy...but except for the scientific explanations of quantum theory, everything else on those sites is pure philosophy and BELIEF. Nothing wrong with that, if they were honest about it...but those pseudo-science websites try really hard to come off as scientific websites, when in reality, they don't even apply scientific method when making conclusions.
The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
the above list is in a fairly logical order; a wild guess by any writer would have to be roughly in the above order. For example, one of the steps is "a beginning." Where would you put that step? I would make it step #1, wouldn't you? And I would probably make my list go from simple to complex, probably ending with man."
“If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” --
Since the writer of the Genesis account of the creation got some of the steps wrong, it is hard to say what the probability is that he got some of the steps right; certainly nowhere near one in 3,628,800, probably very close to one in one. The writer of the above list was certainly naive (or lying) to call it a "striking proof."
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by DrunkYogi
He never said they were using 'pseudo-scientific sight', he just said that a lot of websites that people link to are full of pseudo-scientific philosophy that parades itself around as science. Unfortunately, people are lured in by this because it sounds fancy.
Evolution compatible with Creation?
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
I am afraid that he did use this as an arguments.
MrXYZ
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Of course you can always interpret stuff in ways that make it seem as if they are connected, and I have nothing against philosophy...but except for the scientific explanations of quantum theory, everything else on those sites is pure philosophy and BELIEF. Nothing wrong with that, if they were honest about it...but those pseudo-science websites try really hard to come off as scientific websites, when in reality, they don't even apply scientific method when making conclusions.
Originally posted by edmc^2
madness, care to help Kali?
here's the Q:
What is the difference between the word "LIGHT" in Gen 1: v3 and v14?
answer it please, pretty please?
edmc2
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2
The difference between light in those verses? I thought I already differentiated the two...I guess I'll recourse to Hebrew then.
Because, you know, a troll often researches and posts sources when people object to claims.
I started out here then I used the handy-dandy "C" button to get the Hebrew words.
In Genesis verse 3 the word for light is: 'owr
From here
Part of Speech: feminine noun
Biblical Usage:
1) light
a) light of day
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)
c) day-break, dawn, morning light
d) daylight
e) lightning
f) light of lamp
g) light of life
h) light of prosperity
i) light of instruction
j) light of face (fig.)
k) Jehovah as Israel's light
Usage of this word as 'the sun' is restrained to only a single passage in the whole Bible, and it isn't Genesis.
2Sa 23:4 And [he shall be] as the light of the morning, [when] the sun riseth, [even] a morning without clouds; [as] the tender grass [springing] out of the earth by clear shining after rain.
In each case in Genesis when the 'sun' is referenced as a light the word ma'owr is used.
From here
Part of Speech: masculine noun
Biblical usage: 1) light, luminary
So an entirely different word is used between the two, that's what the difference is. Hell, one is a masculine noun and the other is a feminine noun.
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
reply to post by Kailassa
I am afraid that he did use this as an arguments.
MrXYZ
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Of course you can always interpret stuff in ways that make it seem as if they are connected, and I have nothing against philosophy...but except for the scientific explanations of quantum theory, everything else on those sites is pure philosophy and BELIEF. Nothing wrong with that, if they were honest about it...but those pseudo-science websites try really hard to come off as scientific websites, when in reality, they don't even apply scientific method when making conclusions.
Originally posted by Kailassa
Originally posted by edmc^2
madness, care to help Kali?
here's the Q:
What is the difference between the word "LIGHT" in Gen 1: v3 and v14?
answer it please, pretty please?
edmc2
He already answered you.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2
The difference between light in those verses? I thought I already differentiated the two...I guess I'll recourse to Hebrew then.
Because, you know, a troll often researches and posts sources when people object to claims.
I started out here then I used the handy-dandy "C" button to get the Hebrew words.
In Genesis verse 3 the word for light is: 'owr
From here
Part of Speech: feminine noun
Biblical Usage:
1) light
a) light of day
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)
c) day-break, dawn, morning light
d) daylight
e) lightning
f) light of lamp
g) light of life
h) light of prosperity
i) light of instruction
j) light of face (fig.)
k) Jehovah as Israel's light
Usage of this word as 'the sun' is restrained to only a single passage in the whole Bible, and it isn't Genesis.
2Sa 23:4 And [he shall be] as the light of the morning, [when] the sun riseth, [even] a morning without clouds; [as] the tender grass [springing] out of the earth by clear shining after rain.
In each case in Genesis when the 'sun' is referenced as a light the word ma'owr is used.
From here
Part of Speech: masculine noun
Biblical usage: 1) light, luminary
So an entirely different word is used between the two, that's what the difference is. Hell, one is a masculine noun and the other is a feminine noun.