One answer to the dilemma of a seven day Creation vs Scientific views of creation.

a reply to: chr0naut

The view from within a singularity would see time outside the gravitational field as passing incredibly quickly.

There is no time inside a singularity, unless you factor in the almost infinitely slow ticking of the Hawking-radiation clock. God is eternal.

The view from within a singularity shows only what has been captured by the singularity. There is no view of the outside. God is blind.

Nothing can escape from a singularity, except in Hawking dribbles. God is impotent, possibly due to prostate issues.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

The view from within a singularity would see time outside the gravitational field as passing incredibly quickly.

There is no time inside a singularity, unless you factor in the almost infinitely slow ticking of the Hawking-radiation clock. God is eternal.

The view from within a singularity shows only what has been captured by the singularity. There is no view of the outside. God is blind.

Nothing can escape from a singularity, except in Hawking dribbles. God is impotent, possibly due to prostate issues.

Apologies, I should have referred to "the view from inside the event horizon", not "from within a singularity". A semantic failure on my part.

However, at the singularity, what we know of Physics breaks down. It is totally beyond us to even theorize about what may be happening at the point of singularity. To state categorically that there is no time inside a singularity, is untenable.

And surely, since a singularity is believed to capture all light incident over the entire surface of its event horizon, its light capturing capability exceeds any telescope ever built.

Perhaps God isn't as blind as you (think).

Also, Hawking radiation occurs at the event horizon, not at the singularity. It appears that you are making the same semantic error that I did.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Then maybe they wrote it down wrong. We are talking about human scribes here. If the first scribe writes it wrong, all subsequent scribes are going to get it wrong when they copy that text. The Torah was written back when humans thought they were the center of the universe and above all life on the planet. Today, science shows us that isn't the case. So if you want to keep these old texts as valid, then clearly the original scribes made mistakes.

The oldest book of the Bible is assumed to be the book of Job. In it God puts Job in his place by pointing out that mankind is not at the top of the tree.

Perhaps Charles Darwin was wrong with what he wrote in "The Origin of the Species". He was human too. And subsequent copyists have simply broadcast his errors. I mean, it was written back when the genome was unknown, right? As an argument, it is really fairly crappy just like your one which I was parodying. Let's both just drop this particular one and try something that is better reasoned and stronger, next time.

Darwin was wrong. The theory of evolution has been modified and changed since he wrote that book; much in the same way that changing the text in Genesis would be actually. You change the small part that is incorrect to the newer and more correct information, but keep the bulk of what is written. If religious texts allowed themselves to do that, then they'd be a lot more believable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Then maybe they wrote it down wrong. We are talking about human scribes here. If the first scribe writes it wrong, all subsequent scribes are going to get it wrong when they copy that text. The Torah was written back when humans thought they were the center of the universe and above all life on the planet. Today, science shows us that isn't the case. So if you want to keep these old texts as valid, then clearly the original scribes made mistakes.

The oldest book of the Bible is assumed to be the book of Job. In it God puts Job in his place by pointing out that mankind is not at the top of the tree.

Perhaps Charles Darwin was wrong with what he wrote in "The Origin of the Species". He was human too. And subsequent copyists have simply broadcast his errors. I mean, it was written back when the genome was unknown, right? As an argument, it is really fairly crappy just like your one which I was parodying. Let's both just drop this particular one and try something that is better reasoned and stronger, next time.

Darwin was wrong. The theory of evolution has been modified and changed since he wrote that book; much in the same way that changing the text in Genesis would be actually. You change the small part that is incorrect to the newer and more correct information, but keep the bulk of what is written. If religious texts allowed themselves to do that, then they'd be a lot more believable.

Yes, I believe that Darwin was wrong in that he proposed a single mechanism with few components as an explanation of observed genetic diversity (as I have argued elsewhere) but I would be interested to find out your opinion?

What specific errors do you see in "The Origin of the Species"?

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not going to break it down point by point, but off the top of my head Darwin said that all animals evolve at the same rate. This is incorrect. Today we have determined that animals evolve at different rates depending on their environment and necessity. We call that punctuated equilibrium.

So we struck that from the evolutionary theory and replaced it with punctuated equilibrium. This keeps the theory valid with new evidence. What I said about Genesis would be the same thing. Discard the clearly incorrect information and replace it with correct information while keeping the majority of it. Drop the part that says humans were created in his image and change it to life was created in his image. Drop the many contradictions from the bible and smooth them out. The bible being so resistant to change makes it invalid.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

The view from within a singularity would see time outside the gravitational field as passing incredibly quickly.

There is no time inside a singularity, unless you factor in the almost infinitely slow ticking of the Hawking-radiation clock. God is eternal.

The view from within a singularity shows only what has been captured by the singularity. There is no view of the outside. God is blind.

Nothing can escape from a singularity, except in Hawking dribbles. God is impotent, possibly due to prostate issues.

It just occurred to me, if we extrapolate the speed-up of time that one would experience after passing the event horizon (i.e: the capture of vast swathes of time compressed down to far shorter durations), that the singularity would indeed be atemporal but not in the sense of having no time, rather it may have all time.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not going to break it down point by point, but off the top of my head Darwin said that all animals evolve at the same rate. This is incorrect. Today we have determined that animals evolve at different rates depending on their environment and necessity. We call that punctuated equilibrium.

So we struck that from the evolutionary theory and replaced it with punctuated equilibrium. This keeps the theory valid with new evidence. What I said about Genesis would be the same thing. Discard the clearly incorrect information and replace it with correct information while keeping the majority of it. Drop the part that says humans were created in his image and change it to life was created in his image. Drop the many contradictions from the bible and smooth them out. The bible being so resistant to change makes it invalid.

Firstly, I doubt that Darwin ever assumed a standard evolutionary rate. To him, mutation was a totally random event and natural selection was chaotic beyond quantification.

I think that what you are actually suggesting is that regular gradual change has not been clearly observed and instead we see many cases of saltational change. One proposed mechanism for this rapid change is punctuated equilibrium, which argues that organisms stay unchanged for long periods of time and change, when it does finally happen, is rapid (reasons for this may include catastrophism & etc). Regular gradual change has not been removed from evolutionary theory and is still strongly argued for today.

I believe that the Bible actually stands up fairly well under investigation of its "contradictions". You must remember that those contradictions are in interpretation. For example, what some would see as a plain metaphor, others see as literal (My personal belief is that the Bible is full of rich metaphor and artistic imagery).

I believe that, if we were to allow editing of the Bible, then it confers less trust on the actual text. It would become the playground of alternate interpretations, modified in an 'edit war' until all truth would be lost.

If we take an aside to consider the scientific example of Saltation as a proposed theory for the explanation of biodiversity. Before Darwin, it was a big thing, After Darwin, considered to be discredited for nearly a century. Now with more data and observation, it's back again.

Science is like that, its theoretical 'fashionistas' so totally lost in their specifics that they cannot accept the overview. A 'truth' that is wrong is simply not a truth. Science is too changeable to reliably describe its postulates as truth and it will (and should) always be this way.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I believe that the Bible actually stands up fairly well under investigation of its "contradictions". You must remember that those contradictions are in interpretation. For example, what some would see as a plain metaphor, others see as literal.

That is one of the things that makes it flawed. If you can't settle on a single interpretation and let everyone interpret it how they please then it doesn't really say anything.

I believe that, if we abandon absolutes as a possibility and we were to allow editing of the Bible, then it confers less trust on the actual text. It would become the playground of alternate interpretations, modified in an edit war until all truth would be lost.

Well there isn't much trust there to begin with since there are so many inaccuracies.

Consider Saltation as a proposed theory for the explanation of biodiversity. Before Darwin, a big thing, after Darwin, considered to be discredited for nearly a century. Now with more data and observation, it's back.

Science is like that, its theoretical 'fashionistas' so totally lost in their specifics that they cannot accept the overview. A 'truth' that is wrong is simply not a truth. Science is too changeable to reliably describe its theses as truth and it will (and should) always be this way.

Science is the most accurate answer for truth. Yes, it isn't 100% accurate, but nothing is. Science though makes the best attempt to get the closest by discarding bad information in favor of better information with new evidence.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
I believe that the Bible actually stands up fairly well under investigation of its "contradictions". You must remember that those contradictions are in interpretation. For example, what some would see as a plain metaphor, others see as literal.

That is one of the things that makes it flawed. If you can't settle on a single interpretation and let everyone interpret it how they please then it doesn't really say anything.

I believe that, if we abandon absolutes as a possibility and we were to allow editing of the Bible, then it confers less trust on the actual text. It would become the playground of alternate interpretations, modified in an edit war until all truth would be lost.

Well there isn't much trust there to begin with since there are so many inaccuracies.

Consider Saltation as a proposed theory for the explanation of biodiversity. Before Darwin, a big thing, after Darwin, considered to be discredited for nearly a century. Now with more data and observation, it's back.

Science is like that, its theoretical 'fashionistas' so totally lost in their specifics that they cannot accept the overview. A 'truth' that is wrong is simply not a truth. Science is too changeable to reliably describe its theses as truth and it will (and should) always be this way.

Science is the most accurate answer for truth. Yes, it isn't 100% accurate, but nothing is. Science though makes the best attempt to get the closest by discarding bad information in favor of better information with new evidence.

I do not see the Bible as being full of inaccuracies.

The Bible is also quite clear on what is poetic or metaphorical and what isn't. That does not stop people from taking those metaphors as literal. It is not an error of the Bible, but is an error of the person.

Lets again refer to a similar case in science; the famed "rubber sheet" analogy used to explain aspects of gravitation relating to the curvature of space-time. Many people are willing to argue all sorts of nonsense based on a too literal interpretation. Because they misunderstand the science, does not make the science invalid or wrong.

Going back to the Bible, it contains poetry, fictional stories used to explain a point (and identified as such), songs, many metaphors and 'types' yet people take things out of context and misinterpret, not because the Bible is wrong, but because they are wrong. The Bible is not hard to understand but you have to actually read it in entirety to get a clear view of its message. There are even many Christians who have not done this and so interpretational errors are bound to arise.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I do not see the Bible as being full of inaccuracies.

The Bible is also quite clear on what is poetic or metaphorical and what isn't. That does not stop people from taking those metaphors as literal. It is not an error of the Bible, but is an error of the person.

Really? I've yet to see a bible passage that clearly says, "this is a metaphor." There are some parables in there from Jesus that you can argue may be metaphor, but everything else is up to the reader.

Lets again refer to a similar case in science; the famed "rubber sheet" analogy used to explain aspects of gravitation relating to the curvature of space-time. Many people are willing to argue all sorts of nonsense based on a too literal interpretation. Because they misunderstand the science, does not make the science invalid or wrong.

But science is clear in what is saying. There isn't anything left up to interpretation. You are either properly studied in the subject or you aren't. There is no middle ground here. Bible on the other hand is anyone's game. You could have skimmed the thing and still have a solid interpretation of it.

Going back to the Bible, it contains poetry, fictional stories used to explain a point (and identified as such), songs, many metaphors and 'types' yet people take things out of context and misinterpret, not because the Bible is wrong, but because they are wrong. The Bible is not hard to understand but you have to actually read it in entirety to get a clear view of its message. There are even many Christians who have not done this and so interpretational errors are bound to arise.

I agree that there are many Christians who have failed to do the basic reading of their very religion, but understudied people exist in all ideologies. The problem I have is that two people can be equally studied in the bible and have two completely different interpretations of it.

a reply to: chr0naut

I believe that the Bible actually stands up fairly well under investigation of its "contradictions".

I bring up the issues with Genesis frequently in threads and have yet to have a believer demonstrate it stands up well under investigation.

In fact, you yourself said "I have no definite answer to your issue" and then followed that with a possibility that Genesis 2 resolves it.

**I did appreciate your theory from the physics standpoint btw.

I would very much like to see a refutation from you, or others, of the various issues. As it stands it simply hasn't happened yet. I strongly disagree the Bible stands up well with investigation.

You must remember that those contradictions are in interpretation.

Indeed. That's often how these issues are resolved for believers. Problem is they appear to be straightforward literal claims.

For example, what some would see as a plain metaphor, others see as literal

I'll ask what I frequently ask of believers that say that.

Can you specifically inform me which parts then are literal and which are allegorical?

a reply to: chr0naut

Apologies, I should have referred to "the view from inside the event horizon", not "from within a singularity". A semantic failure on my part.

Not semantic at all. An error with massive physical implications, if you will pardon the pun.

So God is in rapid transit between an even horizon and a singularity. God is doomed.

a reply to: chr0naut

the singularity would indeed be atemporal but not in the sense of having no time, rather it may have all time.

And the difference is...?

Father of Jesus, love's Reward,
What rapture will it be,
Prostrate before Thy throne to lie,
And gaze and gaze on Thee!
— F.W. Favour, 'An English Hymnal'

Sounds a bit like rigor mortis to me, I'm afraid.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I would very much like to see a refutation from you, or others, of the various issues.

See above.

a reply to: Astyanax

I am asking for a solid rebuttal from believers towards the arguments against Genesis. Actually I meant it more broadly, but it should be specific to the cosmological ones for this thread. By 'others 'I meant others believing in the literalness of the Bible.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

Apologies, I should have referred to "the view from inside the event horizon", not "from within a singularity". A semantic failure on my part.

Not semantic at all. An error with massive physical implications, if you will pardon the pun.

So God is in rapid transit between an even horizon and a singularity. God is doomed.

Not if the singularity is an artifact of God's presence in the physical universe at the (relative) time of Creation. If He can transit from the physical or has sufficient energy (positive and/or negative).

Perhaps He can move faster than light at whim?

Perhaps He can simply side step physicality at whim?

We are talking about God, after all.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
I do not see the Bible as being full of inaccuracies.

The Bible is also quite clear on what is poetic or metaphorical and what isn't. That does not stop people from taking those metaphors as literal. It is not an error of the Bible, but is an error of the person.

Really? I've yet to see a bible passage that clearly says, "this is a metaphor." There are some parables in there from Jesus that you can argue may be metaphor, but everything else is up to the reader.

Lets again refer to a similar case in science; the famed "rubber sheet" analogy used to explain aspects of gravitation relating to the curvature of space-time. Many people are willing to argue all sorts of nonsense based on a too literal interpretation. Because they misunderstand the science, does not make the science invalid or wrong.

But science is clear in what is saying. There isn't anything left up to interpretation. You are either properly studied in the subject or you aren't. There is no middle ground here. Bible on the other hand is anyone's game. You could have skimmed the thing and still have a solid interpretation of it.

Going back to the Bible, it contains poetry, fictional stories used to explain a point (and identified as such), songs, many metaphors and 'types' yet people take things out of context and misinterpret, not because the Bible is wrong, but because they are wrong. The Bible is not hard to understand but you have to actually read it in entirety to get a clear view of its message. There are even many Christians who have not done this and so interpretational errors are bound to arise.

I agree that there are many Christians who have failed to do the basic reading of their very religion, but understudied people exist in all ideologies. The problem I have is that two people can be equally studied in the bible and have two completely different interpretations of it.

When something is written in a song it may very well be metaphorical, mightn't it (the Psalms are all songs, as is The Song of Solomon)?

When someone is described as "wily as a serpent" do you think this is literal? I know that snakes are primitive and have peanut sized brains, so I see this as a metaphor (actually a double metaphor as it implies things about its subject as well as implies a connection to the Devil [often referred to as "that snake", even in English], you see, two metaphors).

When someone is described as "like a lamb", it is, to me, obvious that it is not literal.

When we talk of the "Dove of Peace", how can what is essentially a mouse with wings, do any thing related to the process of peace? It is obviously a metaphor.

These are a few examples.

Sure, there are some prophetic and apocalyptic poetry segments which could be either literal or metaphorical but they are nowhere near as frequent as many might suggest. Nor do they particularly 'mess with the meanings' of the Bible overall.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Astyanax

I am asking for a solid rebuttal from believers towards the arguments against Genesis. Actually I meant it more broadly, but it should be specific to the cosmological ones for this thread. By 'others 'I meant others believing in the literalness of the Bible.

That is a big ask and I reason that it is beyond my capability to provide such.

Please provide proof of anything to me?

... but back on topic, surely, in its limited way we might see that at least one argument against the Genesis account (the issue of time-frames), may be resolvable though reason.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

the singularity would indeed be atemporal but not in the sense of having no time, rather it may have all time.

And the difference is...?

Father of Jesus, love's Reward,
What rapture will it be,
Prostrate before Thy throne to lie,
And gaze and gaze on Thee!
— F.W. Favour, 'An English Hymnal'

Sounds a bit like rigor mortis to me, I'm afraid.

Have you ever watched fireworks, a television show, great art? Did you find enough content there to watch for an extended time?

Also, the dead cannot gaze.

a reply to: chr0naut

Have you ever watched fireworks, a television show, great art? Did you find enough content there to watch for an extended time?

I doubt that any firework display, TV show or great work of art could hold my undivided energy (or anyone else's) for eternity. But you are missing my point, which is that 'all time' is effectively equivalent to 'no time'.

By the way, I shall bring up this thread every time you claim not to be a religious creationist in discussions about evolution.