The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: Barcs

The discussion is about animals, not generic life in the form of single celled organisms...You are introducing a red herring to detract from your lack of scientific knowledge as well as failing in reading comprehension again.

a reply to: raymundoko

LMAO! After being proven wrong you still come back with insults and drivel, despite insisting that you were right so vehemently just 2 posts ago. If it was a red herring, why did you argue against it and claim I was wrong? Funny, I prove myself correct and all you can do is insult me. Can't you just discuss the topic without taking it so personally?

Life emerging in the oceans first IS NOT a red herring, it is a fact of planet earth and the history of life. Are you claiming that god didn't create bacteria or single celled organisms? It's going to be funny seeing what you'll insert into the genesis story next to force your viewpoint.

Sorry bud. You've been completely debunked despite being so desperate to prove your religion true. It's funny how the discussion is suddenly just about animals when we both clearly said "life" in the ocean and were talking about plants. Forget bacteria and single celled organisms, they don't matter. Yeah, lets just throw out anything that goes against your faulty premise. Now you are backtracking big time trying to change the argument.

I wonder if you realize how intellectually dishonest you have been. Surely you realize how ridiculous it sounds by now?

Keep science out of religion. It doesn't belong and it clearly isn't your forte.

a reply to: Barcs

You are the one being intellectually dishonest. Genesis only specifically refers to the creation of PLANT and ANIMAL life. We have to assume life not part of the animal kingdom is not included in the genesis story. Those organisms would have thrived in the early earth atmosphere. They would have also been the building blocks used to trigger evolution of the plant and animal kingdoms respectively. It is absolutely a red herring fallacy on your part, and for you to not understand that shows your extremely disingenuous attitude. (See the bottom of this post to verify how, since you can't figure it out)

Just as the book glosses over the creation of the galaxy and solar system, it most likely glosses over bacterial life forms.

Concerning:

If it was a red herring, why did you argue against it and claim I was wrong?

More proof of a complete lack of reading comprehension. Scroll up, I have always used "simple animals" when discussing the timeline of evolution. In fact, if you go to the very post you replied to:

a reply to: raymundoko

You will see this gem:

So plants showed up nearly 100m years before the first simple animals.

So you aren't even familiar with what you are replying to? Do you think this shows you are capable of reading comprehension?

a reply to: raymundoko

Hilarious.

So I'm to believe that god just conveniently skipped over the section on creating single celled organisms and the very first life on earth, despite it taking longer than all other creation put together. I was wondering how you'd justify the conflict with science. You just pretend that it doesn't exist. Sorry but you can't just dismiss anything you don't like as a red herring.

Calling early sea life a red herring is absolutely absurd and insulting me over and over about reading comprehension isn't going to change that. This conversation is about you claiming that the biblical account doesn't conflict with science. You can't just skip over the entire evolution of multi-cellular life because it doesn't suit your story and ignore certain facts of life

Genesis only specifically refers to the creation of PLANT and ANIMAL life.

Did you conveniently miss the part about creating the sun, moon and stars?

Stop backtracking, you were talking about big bang and formation of the solar system just a couple pages back. Now it's STRICTLY plant and animal life? Too funny. All of these things that you call red herrings, you were talking about earlier in the thread. The conflicts don't go away just because you want them to, and dishonestly insulting my reading comprehension over and over again is really getting old.

We have to assume life not part of the animal kingdom is not included in the genesis story.

You have proved my point. You have to assume. Thank you.

More proof of a complete lack of reading comprehension. Scroll up, I have always used "simple animals" when discussing the timeline of evolution.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Concerning when land plants appeared, I already linked you that study, they predate ocean life:

If you still thought plants came after sea life, then you haven't updated your scientific knowledge in over a decade.

Always... except those 2 times right on this very page lol!

Next you'll probably backtrack more and say you didn't really mean always and that's just my crappy reading comprehension again. I wonder how many times you'll insult my intelligence in your next post.

Try debating the topic and stop being so defensive and condescending with the reading comprehension stuff. If Ad hom is your main debating method, you will get nowhere in a debate.

I'm wondering when God said "Let there be light" - did he create the photon or just the ability of the human retina to perceive light at very specific wavelengths? Humans can only see wavelengths between 390 and 700 nm - that's a relatively small snip of the electromagnetic spectrum. So what was God's intention? That man be limited in what he can see or that quantum packets like photons come into existence?? Any takers on the answer?

a reply to: Barcs

I am not insulting you, I am stating the obvious. For example, using references from AFTER I said "simple animals" should infer that is what I am referring to. This is the lack of reading comprehension that is so glaringly obvious in your case.

Further proof is displayed by taking my statement about animal and plant life and not understanding that I am referring to the specific portions of genesis that deal with the creation of animals and plants (including humans)

You have doubled down on the massive hole you started and moved from a shovel to a excavator.

Again, you want your view to be right, because your view is wrong. If your view is wrong, then those who believe in the bible are idiots. This is how you justify your atheism and why you want people to just "accept it as a metaphor".

Keep in mind, the scientist who founded the big bang and expanding universe, who is far smarter than you will ever be, founded it based on his catholic schooling and I linked to biographies and articles to confirm that previously. He saw no disagreement between the texts in Genesis and the timeline of science concerning the universe and life. He did not see it as a metaphor.

One of my favorite physics professors actually said that the big bang is the last vestige of creationism in science. He is of the reasoning that there are no black holes (I disagree) and that there was no big bang (I disagree). He is of the thought process that the universe has always been here, and no god or beginning is required. That was 15 years ago. Where are we at now? A growing number of quantum physicists are saying the math doesn't support black holes or the big bang. If you want to be anti creationist/atheist, that is the path you should be going down.

For your edification: Here is the thought that the LHC will end up debunking the big bang and black holes:

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html]Source[/ur l]

I see this trend in the various Physics fora I am a regular participant of.

Something that profound would have me revisit my understanding of scripture.

originally posted by: raymundoko
I am not insulting you, I am stating the obvious. For example, using references from AFTER I said "simple animals" should infer that is what I am referring to. This is the lack of reading comprehension that is so glaringly obvious in your case.

Gee, surprise surprise. Rather than debating my points, you go back to "you have no reading comprehension". Maybe you just don't know what that means. When somebody says that they have ALWAYS used a term, and then it is immediately shown that they are lying, it is not my poor reading comprehension. It is your poor use of terminology. It's hilarious that you'd try to poopoo away the idea of ocean life being the first life, and then when proven wrong you call it a red herring. If you use a term, use it properly. Stop telling people they have no reading comprehension because they don't believe your subjective interpretation of thousand year old myths.

Further proof is displayed by taking my statement about animal and plant life and not understanding that I am referring to the specific portions of genesis that deal with the creation of animals and plants (including humans)

You have doubled down on the massive hole you started and moved from a shovel to a excavator.

More drivel. What have I doubled down on? I posted a comprehensive list of conflicts with Genesis and science, and you maybe addressed 2% of it (if you can even call it that) and ignored the rest.

I am referring to the scientific facts about the emergence of life on earth, and the fact is they conflict with genesis. Sorry that you don't like it. If you are trying to reconcile Genesis with science, then you can't just ignore what the science says about certain aspects.

Again, you want your view to be right, because your view is wrong. If your view is wrong, then those who believe in the bible are idiots. This is how you justify your atheism and why you want people to just "accept it as a metaphor".

I want my view to be right because it's wrong? How does that make any sense? Will you stop this irrelevant condescending red herring already? I have not argued that god is wrong or that believers are idiots, but you are painting me with that bush. Why? Why are you trying to make it personal? Why are you posting lies about my intentions? I don't need to justify my own beliefs, I understand they are beliefs and they could easily be wrong. You, on the other hand, seem to need to justify your faith to others, rather than acknowledge that it could be wrong.

Keep in mind, the scientist who founded the big bang and expanding universe, who is far smarter than you will ever be, founded it based on his catholic schooling and I linked to biographies and articles to confirm that previously.

Was that bolded line really necessary? I don't understand why you need to insult me to argue your point?

Plus that is a complete lie. He founded it based on scientific evidence, not based on his catholic schooling. LMAO.

He saw no disagreement between the texts in Genesis and the timeline of science concerning the universe and life. He did not see it as a metaphor.

Your point? I don't care about his personal faith.

One of my favorite physics professors actually said that the big bang is the last vestige of creationism in science. He is of the reasoning that there are no black holes (I disagree) and that there was no big bang (I disagree). He is of the thought process that the universe has always been here, and no god or beginning is required. That was 15 years ago. Where are we at now? A growing number of quantum physicists are saying the math doesn't support black holes or the big bang. If you want to be anti creationist/atheist, that is the path you should be going down.

Please explain what one man's beliefs on the universe or quantum physics (highly theoretical) has to do with atheism?

So it seems I was correct. You didn't ague against any of my points, you insulted my reading comprehension, and backtracked even more.

a reply to: Barcs

OK, let's clear this up.

en.wikipedia.org...

Reading comprehension is defined as the level of understanding of a text/message. This understanding comes from the interaction between the words that are written and how they trigger knowledge outside the text/message.

Statements like this:

I want my view to be right because it's wrong? How does that make any sense?

Are indicative of the problem.

Concerning Georges, you say it's a lie? I linked to biographies from his compatriots; Specifically, his close friend and colleague Daniel O'Connell, Science adviser to the Pope...

Also, again: I have always been referring to simple animal life. All statements concerning life should be inferred as referring to simple animal life (when coming from me). You are taking it as an insult and being extremely defensive because I think you feel you are backed into the very hole you dug.

One of your lists is located here:

a reply to: Barcs

I replied directly to that and revised your list.

Here is your other list:

a reply to: Barcs

Which I also replied to. That post was mainly gibberish and intended to be obtuse. It basically didn't deserve a response it was so poorly thought out so I intentionally ignore some aspects of it as it was so far off topic.

Now, even though I cleared it up for you that I am specifically referring to simple animal life (and is in the very post you replied to), you are clinging to a formal fallacy to argue. You are attempting to run in circles and nit pick to seem you are still in this fight.

If all you are going to do is run in circles we should just end this "debate".

a reply to: Barcs

To be clear, I do not find you unintelligent. You obvious like the sciences which is commendable. More people should be like that.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Statements like this:

"I want my view to be right because it's wrong? How does that make any sense?"

Are indicative of the problem.

Yes, and the problem is your failure to communicate your points effectively. The quoted statement of mine above is in reference to something you said twice, yet have not even explained.

You said that I want my view to be right because it's wrong. The first time I thought you meant I only believed it because I want it to be right and you were saying it was wrong (a completely useless and baseless argument in itself that has nothing to do with the topic). The second time, I figured you couldn't have possibly made the same mistake twice, so I want to know what you actually mean by that. It's not poor reading comprehension, you don't explain things and use obscure terminology. You didn't construct a coherent sentence. I understand what we are talking about, you are just doing a terrible job sticking to the points. Every post you make you go off on some tangent about atheism or reading comprehension and make the argument about me, rather than the subject matter. If I have made an error understanding your statement, then clarify it, instead of claiming I have no reading comprehension and other insulting statements.

When you say, "plants predate ocean life", it is a false statement. You can't expect the reader to realize that you are actually only talking about simple animals. This is your failure to use the proper terminology. I comprehended your statement perfectly, it was just wrong. I was never talking about simple animals, I was talking about ocean life as a whole since my first post, and that should have been perfectly clear when I referenced the 3 billion years part in 3 separate posts. It sounds to me like you are the one with the reading comprehension issue. Stop using improper terminology to discuss science.

Concerning Georges, you say it's a lie? I linked to biographies from his compatriots; Specifically, his close friend and colleague Daniel O'Connell, Science adviser to the Pope...

The big bang was verified by science and measurements, the theory is not a result of his catholic schooling as you suggested and don't you dare mention reading comprehension again. You said that he, "founded it based on his catholic schooling". That is not true. I'm not trying to discredit the guy, I'm saying that his scientific knowledge is what propelled him to come up with the concept, not his religious education. Again, I don't know if this is you not properly constructing sentences and points again or what.

I don't mean any offense by this, but is English your second language? It would explain why you use terms like "always," that is absolute in meaning, to describe something that doesn't always happen. If you said, "most of the time", or "some of the time", or "generally speaking I have mostly used", but you say "always" which implies every single time.

All statements concerning life should be inferred as referring to simple animal life (when coming from me).

Well that's good to know in hindsight. Too bad the history of life on earth includes early sea life that predates plants, and very much matters to the big picture in regards to the emergence of life on earth.

You are taking it as an insult and being extremely defensive because I think you feel you are backed into the very hole you dug.

I am taking it as an insult because you have repeated it over and over and over again without demonstrating how or why and are using it as a way to dodge my points rather than address them. I think you are intentionally using obscure terminology to muddy the waters here.

Which I also replied to. That post was mainly gibberish and intended to be obtuse. It basically didn't deserve a response it was so poorly thought out so I intentionally ignore some aspects of it as it was so far off topic.

One again, you are claiming to know my intentions, but you do not and you respond with insults rather than counterpoints. That post was NOT gibberish, but most of your responses have been exactly that. Again, I know you replied, you just didn't address all of the problems. You tried to side step them, but they are still problems. You addressed a very small amount of my points that conflict with science.

Rob Schneider is a Stapler

a reply to: Barcs

Yes, I absolutely can expect the reader to know I am speaking about simple animals because I clearly say it in the same post I made the other statement...I pointed as much out to you, and your reply used the very post I said simple animals in. Your attempt to obfuscate seems insincere.

To better explain the statement that you are having so much issue with:

I want my view to be right because it's wrong?

What this means is, your view is wrong. That is simple to understand right? You think your view is right, but I posit your view is very wrong and have demonstrated why I feel that way. To have your view, however, invalidates the genesis account as mere myth or fabricated story (or metaphor as you stated) to garner understanding of the world instead of an actual vision of creation as given by a creator. You have clearly stated that is your view several times, and that you have no problem with other people having the same view. You welcome people wholeheartedly to share the same view.

If your view is wrong, then the genesis narrative is neutral and doesn't disagree with science at all. This is unacceptable to you as you need it to be in stark opposition to science in order to discredit it from having any type of credence.

So you want your view to be right, because your view is wrong. The statement has it's roots in confirmation bias. I am unsure how much clearer I can explain that.

a reply to: raymundoko

So basically, the way I interpreted it the first time was correct and all you meant by that statement is that you believe my view is wrong. I'm sorry you feel that way, but you haven't provided sufficient reasoning to suggest that I am wrong or that my interpretation is invalid. You forget that this is an ancient myth and is highly subjective in the first place, so telling people that their view is wrong while yours is right, has no bearing on reality. Your position requires numerous assumptions, ignoring certain pieces of evidence that don't fit, and cherry picking the science that you want to support it. My view has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to be right. It's based on science and logic. My view is that science has it right, and that the genesis story conflicts as it was written.

Here are the conflicts that you have not addressed or sufficiently resolved, and this is being very generous:

1. There is inconsistency with the lengths of each day, which makes it conflict with the geological column and age of the earth.

2. Fish and whales get created at the same time, despite 200 million + years (and a biblical day) between the 2.

3. Seed bearing land plants are the first created life when seeds didn't emerge for 300 million more years after land plants, plus they aren't the first life on earth.

4. There are numerous conflicts with evolution, most notably human evolution in compared with creating a man from dirt in god's image and woman from a man's rib. Genetically that would not work as it relies on incest, which leads to health issues and weaker genes. Humans would have gone extinct if it relied on a single man and woman to populate the entire planet. No this isn't gibberish, this is fact.

5. There are conflicts with genetics, more specifically our proven genetic link to modern chimps and other great apes that directly conflicts with creation from dirt.


Ocean life predates land plants and the NIV bible says,

"God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it"

I know I posted this before. Are you claiming that simple early lifeforms in the water do not count as living things?

You distracted us from this point with the "I said simple animals" argument, but this conflict has not been resolved. Based on the quote above, god created everything that lives in the water AFTER land plants. Whales (great creatures of the sea) came after land animals according to science, but were created first according to NIV.

If you wish to move forward from here, all I ask is that you address each one of my points and offer a rebuttal. Don't insult me with reading comprehension nonsense, claiming you know my intentions, or anything else that has nothing to do with the subject. If I'm wrong, then break it down for me. I'd happily do the same for you if you had questions about the science. If you can't handle this, then this will be my last post in the thread.

a reply to: Barcs

Extremely sorry for the lack of response. I have been very busy IRL and have not had a chance to check the boards. I will generate a response as soon as I have more time.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I thought only virgin women could ride Unicorns ..... wait? What?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: raymundoko

Here are the conflicts that you have not addressed or sufficiently resolved, and this is being very generous:

1. There is inconsistency with the lengths of each day, which makes it conflict with the geological column and age of the earth.

2. Fish and whales get created at the same time, despite 200 million + years (and a biblical day) between the 2.

3. Seed bearing land plants are the first created life when seeds didn't emerge for 300 million more years after land plants, plus they aren't the first life on earth.

4. There are numerous conflicts with evolution, most notably human evolution in compared with creating a man from dirt in god's image and woman from a man's rib. Genetically that would not work as it relies on incest, which leads to health issues and weaker genes. Humans would have gone extinct if it relied on a single man and woman to populate the entire planet. No this isn't gibberish, this is fact.

5. There are conflicts with genetics, more specifically our proven genetic link to modern chimps and other great apes that directly conflicts with creation from dirt.


Ocean life predates land plants and the NIV bible says,

"God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it"

I know I posted this before. Are you claiming that simple early lifeforms in the water do not count as living things?

You distracted us from this point with the "I said simple animals" argument, but this conflict has not been resolved. Based on the quote above, god created everything that lives in the water AFTER land plants. Whales (great creatures of the sea) came after land animals according to science, but were created first according to NIV.

If you wish to move forward from here, all I ask is that you address each one of my points and offer a rebuttal. Don't insult me with reading comprehension nonsense, claiming you know my intentions, or anything else that has nothing to do with the subject. If I'm wrong, then break it down for me. I'd happily do the same for you if you had questions about the science. If you can't handle this, then this will be my last post in the thread.

So here we go, I am only going to use posts from this thread to show all those were answered, and that you either didn't read them or you do indeed lack comprehension. (4 and 5 are new questions, or were intentionally ignored as they were so outlandish, I am addressing them here)

1: raymundoko

2: raymundoko
Again, to further expand, "Great Sea Creature" does not have to include whales...There are plenty of great sea creatures that have gone extinct that were larger than whales. Also, since I believe in evolution, I see no issue with animals continuing to evolve after they appeared initially, even if that means going from land back to the sea. If a creator used evolution to direct the creation of life, why would evolution need to stop after a type of animal was initially created?

3: Included in 2; You were off by nearly 500m years on when plants evolved.

4: You are using the argument of incest? Really? Do you not understand that early humans interbred to get to where we are today? Source This shows a complete lack of scientific knowledge about early humans on your part.

5: Since you like the KJV so much here you go:

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

So initially no mention of dust. Then in 2:7

7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So the word translated dust by the KJV is Aphar, A primitive root: meaning either to be gray or perhaps rather to pulverise; used only as denominative from עָפָר (H6083), to be dust Indicative of a building material. The books of Job and Romans refer to it as clay and mortar respectively. Aphar is also translated as all 3, clay, dust and mortar. If you look at the composition of the earth, even the composition of the universe, the human body definitely appears to be made of the same minerals and in a very similar quantity. Jewish theologians hold that this line simply refers to the fact that humans are made from the earth, the difference being this specific creation got the "Breath of god" or "A Spirit". If that happened to be through a line of hominids, that's just peachy with me. I personally think a lot of genetic modification was going on between hominids and the creator to get man to "his image".

I know I posted this before. Are you claiming that simple early lifeforms in the water do not count as living things?

Concerning that line, I said it already. This is a creative vision. Can a human see bacterial life forms? That is a red herring on your part. Then going again into plant life, when I already linked you scientific studies to show that plant life predates simple animals...it's rather sad on your part.

Now when you say I have not sufficiently resolved the above questions, that is just you disagreeing with me.

Hi all. 23 pages!? Wow!

Sorry, I haven't read them all, so forgive me if this has been mentioned already.

There has always been this battle between science and religion. Both of which, by the way, are man's attempt to understand the world/universe around him.

In my opinion, and we all have one, religion tells us what happened, and science tells us how it happened. I feel more comfortable believing that all of this was by design rather than by accident, but that's just me.

Now you can get into 6,000 years vs billions of years, and I can point out that the bible says that a thousand years is but a day to God, and a day is like a thousand years. Then we can start calculating 7 days of creation x 1,000 years x 365 day per year x 1,000 years, etc., etc., etc.

Or how about aliens seeded the earth, and we are all descendants of extraterrestrial beings. No crazier than saying we were created from the dust or we all evolved from apes.

My point is that science does not have all the answers. Religion doesn't have all the answers either.

As long as man has been around, we have tried to understand and explain everything. Magic had its day, religion, now science, who knows what will come next. Each one seems to have built on the one before it and changed as our understanding of the universe has changed.

I'll leave you with this one thought to ponder. Regardless of whether you are religious, atheist, scientist, heretic, or whatever else you want to call yourself...


What if we are ALL wrong???

originally posted by: raymundoko
So here we go, I am only going to use posts from this thread to show all those were answered, and that you either didn't read them or you do indeed lack comprehension.

I asked you to explain them without being condescending and insulting, but you simply can't resist throwing the insults in. I didn't ask you to quote previous posts, I asked you to explain it yourself. Instead you focus on putting people down and pretending as if none of the points you brought up were addressed. I'm not repeating everything for the 3rd+ time, and "this is what MIGHT have happened" isn't an argument. "every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it" is pretty clear but I'm just a moron with no reading comprehension that knows nothing about science.

4: You are using the argument of incest? Really? Do you not understand that early humans interbred to get to where we are today? Source This shows a complete lack of scientific knowledge about early humans on your part.

Do you really have to constantly insult people? I just don't get it.

Not only did you blatantly misinterpret that study, it is completely irrelevant as humans and neanderthals were NEVER brought down to a single man and single woman to populate or repopulate the earth. People still practice incest today. That doesn't mean it is viable for long term survival. Perhaps before accusing somebody of knowing nothing about science, you should actually read and understand the research paper yourself. You are very quick to accuse others of being ignorant and stupid, but aren't even looking at yourself. Jesus said to remove the plank from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in somebody else's did he not?

Anyways I'm done with this conversation. You can respond if you want, but if you can't discuss something like this without lies and insults, there is nothing to discuss. Do you honestly believe that is what Jesus wants you to do???? Unbelievable that you go back to the KJV of the bible when I have used NIV every time. Dishonesty doesn't pay and you were blatantly dishonest and condescending in your last response. I guess you are just incapable of an adult discussion.

a reply to: wshadow1

The perspective of science is based on testable and repeatable outcomes. It isn't just a guess like religion or ancient astronaut theory. Even AA theory has way more evidence than any religion does, but like religion it is mostly subjective. Science is objective, and no, religion is not on equal grounds as far as validity goes. Religion is a faith based guess based on ancient myths. Science is provable and helps us learn real things.