Cosmogony, Abiogenesis, & Evolution

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


See your basic understanding of the bible is flawed, that's why you don't believe it, I understand this, because I am a logical person. And logically if an understanding is flawed it won't survive a critical thinker like you and will fail.

The answer is quite simple really.
The formation of the Sun is embedded in Genesis 1:1 before the earth was formed, the Sun is part of the described heavens. There is a reason the bible says the heavens before the earth in that verse, basic chronology in it's simplest form. The verses later on are taking on a past tense, in a way, as it also mentions heavens again, he isn't creating all the heavens at that time, he is just going into more specifics now, that have to do with the sun and moon which already existed.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


So wait, first you make some random statements without providing any scientific evidence to support your claim.

People obviously start citicizing you...

You then decide to copy/paste some creationist propaganda that isn't based on facts as "proof" for creationism. Again, people completely destroyed that "proof" because it isn't based on science, but rather crazy pseudo-science. For example, you told us carbon dating is wrong...when in reality, it isn't. In fact, even you seem to believe in it because you told us you believe the dinosaur fossils to be 200 million years old...something you could only know if you trusted carbon dating. You are contradicting yourself constantly and change your viewpoints whenever it allows you to "make it fit" for creationism.

Anyway, once it was clear your whole "carbon dating" copy/paste text is hogwash, you accuse us of being wrong...and state that you don't wanna talk about it anymore and move on to a new subject. So is that's how it's gonna be? You're just gonna ignore every single criticism and "move on" to a new subject?

You haven't answered to a single criticism of your copy/pasted text!! NOT ONE!! You just keep on ignoring facts just to preserve that fantasy world you've made up in your brain!

You also claimed men has only been on earth for 6035 years!!! How about you join the discussion and explain to us why there's so many homo sapiens fossils that are WAY (aka 250,0000 years older) older? What about the bronze age? Didn't it exist?



You then post this hilarious video...here's what's wrong with it:

1) It states nothing can come from nothing and asks how it is then possible that the universe popped into existence. The correct answer would be "we don't know" but they chose to fill a GAP IN KNOWLEDGE with the mythical god creature. That's the typical "god of the gaps" trap so many creationists fall into.

If you don't know what that is...check this out:


2) It then states "SOMETHING MUST HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED". And 3sec later it claims energy is eternal and has always existed...directly contradicting the previous slide, lol.

3) It then goes on claiming that energy is "god"...without providing ANY SCIENTIFIC PROOF!! Which is hilarious considering the title of the video includes "scientific proof".


Anyway, I don't think discussing with you is useful because so far you ignored every criticism people brought up, and just claim they're all wrong (without backing up your statements) while you continue to PREACH!

Every single thing you posted is either a blatant LIE, or just shows that you have no clue about science. Look, you're more than welcome to challenge science (like science challenges itself constantly) and talk about your theories. But if you attack science, you have to expect people to defend it using scientific method...and attack your way of thinking in the same manner.

Nothing you posted so far would indicate the existence of a god. In fact, what you did is filling gaps of scientific knowledge with a mythical creature...just like cavemen did with fire because they didn't understand it...or you blatantly lie as was the case with carbon dating.

Are you so brainwashed that you can't see reality anymore?

reply to post by MrXYZ


As for the carbon dating and 6035 years I can't move on that, like other parts of the Genesis account, I can't move on that because we have hard numbers that have to be taken literally there is no way around that one. All I can say is that some carbon dating must be flawed, in time this will proved to be true. That is my personal opinion.
The information I found was the only info I could find on carbon dating being thrown into question. It is rebuffed in your mind, not mine. This thread isn't going to focus on carbon dating, create a new one if you like. I am not going to spend anymore time on it.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

As for the carbon dating and 6035 years I can't move on that, like other parts of the Genesis account, I can't move on that because we have hard numbers that have to be taken literally there is no way around that one. All I can say is that some carbon dating must be flawed, in time this will proved to be true. That is my personal opinion.
The information I found was the only info I could find on carbon dating being thrown into question. It is rebuffed in your mind, not mine. This thread isn't going to focus on carbon dating, create a new one if you like. I am not going to spend anymore time on it.

So basically you'll keep on denying proof to the contrary ignorantly no matter how many facts are against you? The carbon dating criticism isn't only debunked in my mind, it's debunked by every scientists working in related fields.

At least now we know talking to you is kinda useless. You will never accept facts if they contradict your belief. That is a very IGNORANT way to walk through the world.

Why create a thread discussing things if all you're interested is preaching. This isn't a one-way street, people discuss...and if you don't like that, you shouldn't have created a thread. You don't want to discuss, you just need a platform to make your random statements and preach! I don't think this is the right forum for you....

Anything you post from now on can be considered total hogwash because you refuse to even back up your first few statements. All you have is belief, and sorry, that won't cut it if you wanna discuss science.

If you're gonna move on every time someone disproves your statement...well, you're gonna "move on" a lot in this thread, basically after every post you make

this thread is more for people that are interested in hearing why creation is plausible even from a scientific view

Well then, you failed...because nothing you posted makes creation plausible from a scientific viewpoint. That is, unless you're a brainwashed zombie who refuses to accept reality...

oops

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

See your basic understanding of the bible is flawed, that's why you don't believe it,

Sorry to split your sentence there, but it is not a flawed understanding to take the Bible as it gives itself. It says the the Sun and the Moon were formed after grass.

I understand this, because I am a logical person. And logically if an understanding is flawed it won't survive a critical thinker like you and will fail.

Again, my understanding isn't flawed. I'm not the one that's about to say that the Sun, which is clearly created after the light and passage of day and night according to Genesis, starts out from the beginning.

The answer is quite simple really.
The formation of the Sun is embedded in Genesis 1:1 before the earth was formed, the Sun is part of the described heavens.

Except that it isn't. It would be awfully redundant for the Sun to exist in Genesis 1:1 and then be formed in Genesis 1:14-17

Genesis:

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

The 'heavens' clearly didn't have any 'lights' in them prior to this passage.

There is a reason the bible says the heavens before the earth in that verse, basic chronology in it's simplest form.

...yes, but they are a very empty heaven, just like the Earth was empty.

The verses later on are taking on a past tense, in a way, as it also mentions heavens again, he isn't creating all the heavens at that time, he is just going into more specifics now, that have to do with the sun and moon which already existed.

So there's a tense change without any grammatically signifier? And it all takes place on the fourth day because it's taking place before the third day?

I'm sorry, but you're trying to excuse an early bronze age creation myth with science that it doesn't agree with. I've clearly demonstrating, using Bible quotes no less, that the Bible states that the Sun and Moon were created after grass.

There is no evidence in the passage of Genesis that there was anything in the heavens until the fourth day. Go ahead and argue against your own book, but it's not the first time it has a scientific mistake in it.

And I called for you to show me where the other straw men were hiding, where are they?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Crocodiles as a group have existed, but the isn't a single crocodile alive today that could mate successfully with its prehistoric ancestor due to evolutionary forces. The same goes for the coelacanth, which was though to be extinct for millions of years.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

As for the carbon dating and 6035 years I can't move on that, like other parts of the Genesis account, I can't move on that because we have hard numbers that have to be taken literally there is no way around that one. All I can say is that some carbon dating must be flawed, in time this will proved to be true. That is my personal opinion.

C'mon... really? You said yourself that the seven days of creation shouldn't be taken literally because we have scientific evidence that proves otherwise. Well, we have scientific evidence that proves that man has been on Earth for much longer than 6035 years. Maybe it's time for you to rethink what parts of the Bible you're taking as the literal truth and what parts can be interpreted. Even if it's just for the sake of your argument being internally consistent.

The information I found was the only info I could find on carbon dating being thrown into question. It is rebuffed in your mind, not mine. This thread isn't going to focus on carbon dating, create a new one if you like. I am not going to spend anymore time on it.

So one source with no citations outweighs all of the other evidence? No offense, but you're turning your own thread into a complete joke here. This could have really been a useful place for serious discussion, but you keep running away from every single argument instead of addressing them.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


This is seriously the best example of a straw-man argument I have ever seen.
Congratulations, this post should be beside the definition of Straw-man argumentation.
Defending something, you don't believe and is clearly false, so you can tear it down.
Nice.
Excellent job.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

This is seriously the best example of a straw-man argument I have ever seen.
Congratulations, this post should be beside the definition of Straw-man argumentation.
Defending something, you don't believe and is clearly false, so you can tear it down.
Nice.
Excellent job.

Which part of his post is a strawman? At least he's posting sources and backing up his claims with evidence.

You on the other hand publicly state that you'd never accept evidence if it contradicts your BELIEF. Ignorance at its best

You come on here, pretending to want a discussion...but in reality, all you wanna do is preach. And furthermore, you expect us to believe all that hogwash even though every single thing you posted has been refuted...

Laughable!!

We post unbiased scientific evidence to back up our claims, all your wanna-be evidence is based on the same book that contains stuff like this:

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

I said it's laughable...but tbh, I think it's more sad than funny.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Your getting close to ignore status, because I don't want to have to deal with your posts, as they add nothing to this thread, and are trolling in nature against me.
Just saying.

I will be moving to a new point of discussion when I have more time to post.

All I, madness and others post are FACTS. We post SOURCES for every single one of our claims. You are welcome to attack our claims with FACTS, just like we attack yours with FACTS.

You can of course ignore me (won't stop me from refuting your hogwash though) of course, but all it does is show that you're out of arguments. I mean, you talk about IGNORANCE, and then in the next sentence you want to IGNORE me. Who's the ignorant one here? The one posting hard evidence and sources, or the guy who preaches and posts blatant lies, and then threatens to ignore people who criticize his claims.

Hilarious

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


A straw man is when I fabricate a fictional position out of thin air to attack. Here I'm taking quotes from the Bible to show that you are misrepresenting the Bible's account of creation

You seem to be misinformed as to the nature of what a straw man is and is not, citing sources in context is not a straw man argument.

You have no argument to recourse to, so you're just accusing me of misrepresenting things without providing evidence. You are attempting to discredit my arguments by labeling them something you cannot demonstrate.

Please, demonstrate to me in the Bible where it says that the Sun and Moon existed prior to grass.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The bible does not say grass was created before the creation of the Sun & Moon, your interpretation is clearly wrong. Vegetation couldn't grow without the sun anyway, that really does defy science. The planet would be colder than Pluto, a frozen wasteland unable to support no life whatsoever.
It refers to the light from the described heavenly bodies that were preexisting.
I have already explained it.
That whole argument is asinine, and you know it.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

The bible does not say grass was created before the creation of the Sun & Moon, your interpretation is clearly wrong.

1: Saying my 'interpretation' is wrong doesn't make it wrong.
2: I'll quote Genesis from the beginning and point out where it actually says that grass was created before the Sun and Moon.

From Genesis

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Ok, we have a space known as 'heaven' and a space known as Earth/

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Ok, so everything is dark...

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Boom, out of nowhere: light! What a great idea...too bad a light source isn't given yet....it's just...light.

1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

God is awfully pleased with himself, decides to separate light from darkness....but still not a light source in sight.

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Alright...day and night pass without....the sun...

Well, I guess you're saying they're epochs written metaphorically as days.

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

...and there's no such thing as a 'firmament', so let's just toss that passage right out.

1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Again, no 'firmament'.

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

So the sky is Heaven...capital H, not lowercase h.

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Well, this also contradicts what we know about the Earth's formation...

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Alright, now we have dry land and wet sea...but no...nope, nowhere do we have the the Sun or Moon.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

We have vegetation...at least vegetation as it was known to the cultures of the fertile crescent.

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

God seems pretty good at all of this, even if he's getting the order wrong

.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Alright, three days in, no light source but we somehow have a marked passage of time without light sources.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Ok, I guess this means stars. Which are definitely a lot more important than just 'lights in the sky', being pretty much the same as our own Sun...

1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

So where was the light coming from before?

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Well, there are several problems.
1: The Sun isn't a 'great light', it's a close 'light'...and by light it's really a self-sustaining fusion reaction.
2: The Moon isn't a 'light', it's a giant reflector
3: This is the very first mention of the Sun

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

So they're in the firmament...which is around the Earth...which means this is a geocentric model...which is even more wrong.

1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Pleased with himself again.

1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And there we have it, the Sun came about on the fourth day and it is in the firmament which is around the Earth

The Bible seems to fail awfully hard at science and we aren't even 500 words into it.

Vegetation couldn't grow without the sun anyway, that really does defy science.

Which is why the Bible is wrong on the issue.

The planet would be colder than Pluto, a frozen wasteland unable to support no life whatsoever.

Yes, which is why the Bible is wrong. It seems to not know that the Sun is the source of heat and light in our Solar System.

It refers to the light from the described heavenly bodies that were preexisting.
I have already explained it.

No, you simply stated that the Sun is preexisting, even though I pointed out that the Sun is created along with the Moon on the fourth day.

Light is preexistent, but heavenly bodies which produce light are not brought about until the fourth day.

That whole argument is asinine, and you know it.

Yeah, which is why I'm wondering why you're sticking to it. I mean, I've repeatedly shown you that you're wrong, yet you seem to have some sort of 'anti-evidence' filter on your computer. I even took the quotes from Genesis verse by verse now. There's no way you can deny my claims when I've demonstrated them in detail repeatedly, to the ridiculous point that I took Nearly 500 words of Genesis and broke them down.



Now, if you'd like to provide a counter-interpretation, go ahead. But don't simply say mine is wrong. I hope for at least the level of detail I went into in your counter-interpretation before you dismiss mine.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Your trolling that issue out now, I am not playing that game & responding to that stupidity.

Sorry, but I am on to what you're trying to do here.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Your trolling that issue out now, I am not playing that game & responding to that stupidity.

Sorry, but I am on to what you're trying to do here.

edit on 23-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

And another display of ignoring evidence...funny enough it's evidence from YOUR book this time

We're not even attacking you, we're questioning your claims. But you make it very clear you don't really want a discussion because you ignore every every single counter argument. Instead you call people trolls and threaten to ignore them.

YOU started a thread in a DISCUSSION forum, and YOU are the one refusing to have a discussion. Pretty ironic, don't you think so?

At least stay on topic in your own thread instead of attacking people. Are you seriously gonna shut your eyes and cover your ears every time you disagree with something instead of being a man and taking a stand?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

There are some pretty huge strawmans in your entire post, stating some things as facts as what we should believe about what the bible says, that we don't have to. One example

Yes, with the unscientific description that the Earth was formed before the Sun, which completely disagrees with our understanding of the universe.

I don't believe that, never have, and the bible doesn't teach that either.

Blue_Jay, when did you last read the Bible for yourself instead of reading creation sites and listening to preachers?

Surely you wouldn't use the Bible to argue against science without knowing what the Bible actually says?

Day one: (Genesis 1:1)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Pretty self explanatory; there's no argument that the Bible states God made the Earth on the first day.

After that, but still on day one: (Genesis 1:3-5)

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.

If you don't know your Bible, you may believe the created light was the sun, but this account clearly states the sun was not created until day four. So this is some magical light which separates day from night, and which does not come from the sun. I guess God must have set up some ginormous floodlights.

Lets take Day three: (Genesis 1:9-13)

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Do you agree that this describes God "terraforming" the Earth, dividing the dry land from the oceans and creating vegetation?

And now for the fourth day, on which this account states the sun and moon were formed:
(Genesis 1:14-19)

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

You really can't get around it, Blue_Jay.
You claim to trust the Bible, but you're refusing to even look at it.
It's hilarious that the atheists in this thread, (and me,) are the only ones who can read the Bible.
You won't even discuss the Bible , you just say, "you're wrong because you don't BELIEVE"!
Sorry, Blue-_Jay, but Madness and XYZ are right, and there must be enough intelligence in your head to know it.

Oh, by the way, ATS no longer has an ignore function.


I am curious, Blue-Jay. Did you get converted into a Christian group? I've noticed that converts, to born-again sects tend to acqire an immunity to any information contrary to what is taught by their church, even if that information is directly from the Bible, and even if it is directly from the quoted words of Jesus.


Re carbon dating, you said you accept science, and all scientists concerned with carbon dating agree that it works. So why is it so important to you to keep BELIEVING it is incorrect? Is it because carbon dating has proven mankind lived on Earth half a million years ago?

You BELIEVE the Bible is incorrect when it states the sun was created on the fourth day, because that does not jive with what science has proven. But you BELIEVE the Bible is utterly correct in determining the age of mankind.

Tell me, where do you get this 6035 figure from? Are you BELIEVING some preacher or religious site, or did you go to the trouble of reading the Bible, working out the ages and adding it all up for yourself? I'll be very disappointed, though not surprised, if it's the former. I'm betting you don't even know this for yourself, and are taking the word of some fallible human?


Now I know you're not going to answer any of the above, that would not be your style, so how about a NEW QUESTION for your to MOVE ON TO?

Genesis 1:7

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Could you please explain to us what this firmament is? What's it made of and where is it, exactly?

Now, the waters above the firmament, could you show us those in a diagram?
Where are they, and how come cosmologists have not managed to find them yet?


Oh, one more thing.
The plural of strawman is strawmen. And it has a definition, as Madness pointed out, which is quite contrary to the way you were using it. - Just thought you might want to know, as it's obviously a favourite word of yours.

reply to post by Kailassa

and even if it is directly from the quoted words of Jesus.

It's kind of impossible o quote someone at a time there was nobody around that even knew the guy in person isn't it ?

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Kailassa

 

and even if it is directly from the quoted words of Jesus.

It's kind of impossible o quote someone at a time there was nobody around that even knew the guy in person isn't it ?

That's the other fun fact. A lot of those stories weren't written when stuff happened. There's a good chance they got spread around by worth of mouth until people decided to write it all down.

You know that game where you sit in a circle and the first person whispers something to the person to the right...and then it goes all the way around, and in the end the whatever you whispered got butchered along the way? Same thing could very well happened to the bible. People loooooooove to exaggerate, especially if it helps them come to power (aka church).

The only thing this thread accomplished so far is be a good example for this.