God was behind Big Bang, pope says

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

So where's the allegory in the massive list of genealogies?

Those "names" are also Hebrew words, as any blbical scholar or reader of biblical Hebrew can attest to. It establishes more of a psycho-spiritual chronology, than simply (though also does) a historical chronology.

Where's the allegory in all of the laws on slavery?

Theres great meaning in this aswell. You would have to go through the breadth of Talmud, Midrash, and the innumerable rabbinic commentraries JUST to get a hint at the meaning. But it is alluded to. Most clearly in kabbalistic writings like the Ari (Rabbi Isaac luria), Moshe Cordovero and other Safed masters.

You can believe what you want. Youre only proving how obnoxiously arrogant you can be.

Now, I'll give that a few of the books are clearly allegorical, but they're most definitively not all allegorical.

All of it is allegorical. Look up PaRDeS (pronounced similar to paradise). You would be in awe if you knew how profound the book of numbers is for instance. Suffice to say. The entire Tanakh; From he 5 books of moses to the song of songs, is laden in allegory. This is especially obvious in some books; like Judges, Samuel, etc, but is also entirely present in the book of kings... All the names and words conceal metaphysical meaning. Its a principle of Judaism.

Which...you're not providing here. So...I'll have to tack your word for it?

Well. I dont have all day to compile sources for everything i say. Your welcome to go to Wikipedia and read up on whatever it has to say on Nachmanides commentary on the Torah. I personally own it, and study it. He was truly a genius. This is a man who even the James 1 of aragon had profound intellectual respect for; even despite his disagreeing with his conslusions. The domican friars wanted him exiled from spain. The king refused to do so (though with later papal pressure, he was permanantly ousted from spain).

lead into gold

Maybe he meant that in an entirely metaphorical way. In any case, the mystic (aka hermetic) axiom of "as above so below" could be relevant here. The quantum physicist and Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan writes in his commentrary to Sefer Yetzirah that the physical can be transformed through mental means.

No, it should say that some Jews don't know what science is. Please, explain to me how Kabbalah follows the scientific method or has produced any useful knowledge for humanity.

I would refer you to Sefer Yetzriah, by Rabbi and US government employed Physcist Aryeh Kaplan. He can justify Kabbalahs scientific basis much better than i could.

But you can also read Adin Steinhalts (also a physicist) or, read Isaac Ginsburgh ( a mathematician)...

In essence. Kabbalah supposes two realities. The mental, or spiritual, and the physical. The mental is seen as the blueprint or basis of the physical, which is the crystalization of the former. This is also very similar to what Plato posits and what Eastern mystics posit..hence the universal axiom of " as above, so below"....

Cornelius Agrippa in his "philosophy of natural magick" explains that things of a similar nature are consonant with one another. Thus, the qualities of any given thing are its spiritual side, while the physical appearance of it; its dimensions, color etc, are the physical manifestation of this.

In anycase. Its such a vast subject Kabbalah and one needs to read Hebrew in order to truly appreciate the mystery of the language and thus the significance of the Kabbalistic tradition.

reply to post by Methuselah

The idea that the universe is expanding due to unverified/unknown reason directly piggybacks on the big bang theory and is seen by many as an attempt to bypass the the idea of a higher power calling their creation into existence. (ie Genesis 1:1)

Perhaps that's what they teach people in Bible school. In the real world, the expansion of the universe is a prediction based on the theory of General Relativity. Lemaitre and others saw the implication and wrote about it. Einstein, who didn't like the idea of a constantly expanding universe, disagreed with them at first, and even added a term to his equations (the famous Cosmological Constant) to eliminate the implied expansion. Some years later, the expansion of the univers was observed by Edwin Hubble, who noticed that the further away an astronomical object is from us, the redder is the light it emits. On hearing of this, Einstein scrapped the Cosmological Constant, calling it 'my biggest blunder', and accepted the expansion of the universe.

Now an expanding universe obviously suggests a single point of origin, or at least a single mass that then separated and whose components expanded outwards – i.e. a Big Bang. Even so, the hypothesis wasn't immediately accepted by all astronomers and cosmologists – Fred Hoyle, the erstwhile British Astronomer Royal, was still pushing the 'steady-state' alternative well into the 1970s.

So: no, it isn't just some lie dreamed up to refute Genesis. Sometimes things are, indeed, just what they seem.

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

So where's the allegory in the massive list of genealogies?

Those "names" are also Hebrew words, as any blbical scholar or reader of biblical Hebrew can attest to. It establishes more of a psycho-spiritual chronology, than simply (though also does) a historical chronology.

Why are you putting "names" in quotes? I didn't say "names" at all. I was asking where the allegory is, and you're simply stating without explanation or verification that it's a 'psycho-spiritual chronology'

And yes, I'm aware that Hebrew names also happen to be words in Hebrew.

Where's the allegory in all of the laws on slavery?

Theres great meaning in this aswell. You would have to go through the breadth of Talmud, Midrash, and the innumerable rabbinic commentraries JUST to get a hint at the meaning. But it is alluded to. Most clearly in kabbalistic writings like the Ari (Rabbi Isaac luria), Moshe Cordovero and other Safed masters.

Soooo...you're just going to go with special pleading again? You're stating all of this, but I'm actually asking where the allegory is. You can't just give the bullet points? I mean, I regularly have to give the bullet points on philosophy of science and theories of biology, and those cover a lot more than the Talmud, Midrash, and rabbinic comments simply by word count, let alone by data presented.

You can believe what you want. Youre only proving how obnoxiously arrogant you can be.

I'm not arrogant, I just happen to think that slavery is immoral and don't see how an immoral set of commands can be used to provide a positive allegory. Asking where an allegory is doesn't happen to be arrogant. I was curious where you found an allegory in all of that immorality.

Now, I'll give that a few of the books are clearly allegorical, but they're most definitively not all allegorical.

All of it is allegorical.

Evidence, you've not provided any for any of your statements.

Look up PaRDeS (pronounced similar to paradise). You would be in awe if you knew how profound the book of numbers is for instance. Suffice to say. The entire Tanakh; From he 5 books of moses to the song of songs, is laden in allegory. This is especially obvious in some books; like Judges, Samuel, etc, but is also entirely present in the book of kings... All the names and words conceal metaphysical meaning. Its a principle of Judaism.

Again, please demonstrate your claims. I'm not going to take them at face value simply because you've said it.

Which...you're not providing here. So...I'll have to tack your word for it?

Well. I dont have all day to compile sources for everything i say.

I'm not even asking for sources for everything, just a few things here and there. I'm not asking for the full citations either, just some sort of external source or possibly an explanation using a passage from any Hebrew scripture.

Using the "I don't have all day" cop out isn't any more intellectually honest than your special pleading fallacy.

Your welcome to go to Wikipedia and read up on whatever it has to say on Nachmanides commentary on the Torah.

It's a poorly put together piece. It only has 5 references in quite a significant article. I didn't really get much out of it that I didn't already learn in my Medieval Philosophy 101 class, where I found his ideas a bit silly.

I personally own it, and study it. He was truly a genius.

Ok, can you demonstrate that it has any value?

This is a man who even the James 1 of aragon had profound intellectual respect for; even despite his disagreeing with his conslusions. The domican friars wanted him exiled from spain. The king refused to do so (though with later papal pressure, he was permanantly ousted from spain).

And James the first wasn't exactly the greatest scholar of his time. Granted, he was quite the sponsor of the arts and literature, but his main contributions are vernacularization and prose.

lead into gold

Maybe he meant that in an entirely metaphorical way. In any case, the mystic (aka hermetic) axiom of "as above so below" could be relevant here. The quantum physicist and Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan writes in his commentrary to Sefer Yetzirah that the physical can be transformed through mental means.

Anyone who understands quantum physics knows that you cannot transform the physical through mental means. And again, Newton didn't show any evidence of it being metaphorical. You've yet to actually show how Newton gained anything from his study of Hebrew scriptures beyond wasting time that could have gone towards revolutionizing our understanding of the universe even more.

No, it should say that some Jews don't know what science is. Please, explain to me how Kabbalah follows the scientific method or has produced any useful knowledge for humanity.

I would refer you to Sefer Yetzriah, by Rabbi and US government employed Physcist Aryeh Kaplan. He can justify Kabbalahs scientific basis much better than i could.

Soooo...appeal to authority and referring to a source rather than actually telling me that the Kabbalah follows the scientific method? And just because you have applicable scientific credentials doesn't mean that all of your thoughts on science are correct.

Robert T. Bakker is one of the great paleontologists of history, but I disagree with his stances on religion.

But you can also read Adin Steinhalts (also a physicist) or, read Isaac Ginsburgh ( a mathematician)...

Oh goody, more arguments from authority. Or you could just demonstrate how the Kabbalah follows the scientific method. Science isn't about reality, it's about examining reality using methodology.

In essence. Kabbalah supposes two realities. The mental, or spiritual, and the physical. The mental is seen as the blueprint or basis of the physical, which is the crystalization of the former. This is also very similar to what Plato posits and what Eastern mystics posit..hence the universal axiom of " as above, so below"....

Alright, what does any of this have to do with the scientific method? Where's the science? Where's the testing and methodology?

This is most definitely metaphysics which is a (mostly useless) branch of philosophy

Cornelius Agrippa in his "philosophy of natural magick" explains that things of a similar nature are consonant with one another. Thus, the qualities of any given thing are its spiritual side, while the physical appearance of it; its dimensions, color etc, are the physical manifestation of this.

Again, more metaphysics, which is philosophy rather than science. Where's the testing? Where's the verification? Where's the methodology? They're basically just doing what all metaphysicians do, pulling things from their rectum that happen to be logically consistent with one another.

In anycase. Its such a vast subject Kabbalah and one needs to read Hebrew in order to truly appreciate the mystery of the language and thus the significance of the Kabbalistic tradition.

Or you could just give me an example. You don't have to learn a whole language to understand a single linguistic point.

reply to post by Astyanax


Ok i didnt mean for it to sound like they are trying to get around Genesis, but their explanations and/or predictions are purely naturalistic by any means.
Yes things are what they seem to be - however the universe is perceived and thats about as far as it goes for both evolution and religion and even science.
there are some things that will never have a scientific backbone to support itself since we cant test, observe, demonstrate, etc some of the things out there.
my point is, for the pope to say that God was behind the big bang is heresy at best.

Other "gems" by the pope

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Objective (lol) disorder...riiiiight.

We must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living. On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people.

Now replace homosexual with "black/hispanic/asian" and you realize how wrong it is. You can't choose your race, and you can't pick your sexual orientation. It took decades to get something like equal rights for minority races, and homosexuals are still waiting even though their premise is the same. Kinda sad...

"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses acondom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption ofresponsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and thatone cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."

So for all of you who are a male prostitute, you're in luck!! You can now be a Catholic AND use condoms without it being a sin!! Happy times

The rest of you, GTFO

This man definitely seems to be an authority and people should listen to his "wisdom". ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Originally posted by css1981
If the pope is right,

Why can't we read it in the bible then ?

"on the first day God created the heaven and earth..."

It should have said something else like : "on the first day God created time and space... or God created the expansion of heaven...

Don't you wonder why Moses never wrote that ?

Actually he did write that --- In the beginning (this is the creation of time, since there cant be anything before the beginning, and the creator of time cannot be bound by time in order to create it) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter)
time space and matter come into existence simultaneously in the first verse of Genesis...
notice that this answers how the time/space continuum came into existence, i understand its not a scientific/naturalistic explanation but at least its an option. and you never know, there may not be a way for time and space to come into existence on its own without a being beyond the universes boundaries.

Originally posted by Griffo

.. do we always need a scientific answer to beleive in something ...

Not to believe in something, no; you can believe whatever you want.

Unless there's evidence to back it up though it will not be regarded as fact by the vast majority

edit on 6/1/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)

Majority opinion actually is not a method to determine truth. Just because everyone agrees doesnt make it absolute. many historical examples prove this principle time and time again.

Originally posted by 19rn50
reply to post by Ben81

 

I read the lost book of Enoch. He talked about the levels of
heaven. Now this sounds crazy, he said some stars were chained up
because they were disobedient.

read the bible or similar texts in context as it was meant to be read in and im sure you will find that the stars referred to in the bible is not talking about the giant balls of burning gas we see at night. without even reading the passage i would conclude that he is talking about angels

Originally posted by impaired
I have no problem with anyone saying that a creator of some sort created the multiverse... But the pope is trying to say that THEIR GOD did it. Every religion says their god did it.

Am I wrong here??

The way i look at it, everyone believes in God, its the doctrine that separates them .. everyone being the religious peoples.

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by cluckerspud
reply to post by Ben81

 

I always thought that the "Big Bang" was a theory.

I think we should prove the "theory" before we decide who is behind it. Just saying.

The word "theory" does not mean that it is not proven. Germ theory of disease and theory of relativity are not any less true because they are called theories.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hypothesis is what an unproven explanation is called.

well then evolution is definitely a hypothesis since its definitely unproven and therefore cannot be labeled as scientific/science since it lacks the basic requirements to fit that category.
however, pieces of creationism can be labeled as scientific since they do meet the requirements of the definition.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Condemned0625

Originally posted by journey2010
reply to post by Condemned0625

 

You say, "How can a deity exist infinitely into the past..." I cannot prove this through science, hence faith. But I will challenge you with this... "How can everything we are/will be/have been" be created from nothing?" Again, no answer. And if there was "something", then where did it come from? Either way you look at it, there has always had to be something in order to create everything we know. Neither of us can prove what that "something" is - whether it is science or religion, a certain amount of faith must exist in the fact that there has always been "something".

That's simple. Abiogenesis. It has been demonstrated in laboratories. Scientists can create organic matter from non-organic matter. They're not creating something from nothing, but it still proves that we can assemble non-living material in such a way that it becomes the building blocks of a living thing. Maybe there always was something, but it still needs a beginning. Science does not claim to know the definite answer to that question, but it does explain how this universe began. Nobody knows if matter can always have existed, but the same applies to a god. Just because science does not yet know the answer does not mean religion has the right to assert it has the answer. These gods and goddesses require explanations, beginnings and most importantly, evidence. I have no faith. I either know the answer or I don't know the answer, which means I'm honest. Faith is the belief in something without evidence to support it. However, I do have hope for certain things, but hope is not asserting something without evidence; it is simply wishing for something to happen or come true.

Abiogenesis only refers to the beginnings of life.

Abiogenesis is not relevant to the formation of the universe. That study comes under cosmology.

Actually this is where the evolutionist dodges a vital piece to their belief in the creation of the universe by natural means and not by the hand of the supernatural.
the EVOLUTION of the universe includes Abiogenesis... you cant just ignore the fact that life cannot come from non-life.

--- ok tired of quoting

here is the big picture.

if you google the big bang theory - you will find that the explanation given is not what is argued on forums like this. people say explosion, others say expansion (which those are pretty much the same thing, being that an explosion is rapid expansion and you need the same amount of energy to make something expand as you do to make it explode.)

www.big-bang-theory.com...

this website says outright that the evidences dont even line up correctly with the theory, its just a popular theory... can i raise the BS flag yet?
and if the universe began as a singularity / black hole - what could possibly provide so much energy to break the mass into trillions of pieces of matter we know as our universe today?
not even light could escape the gravity of the singularity of this big bang theory, so what caused it to explode/expand? that just doesnt make any sense... at all.

again, this fits into the hypothesis category since it cannot be proven as a theory. all you have is an observation and you assume it was caused by what the theory states.

done for now, my brain hurts from reading all this junk

reply to post by Methuselah

the EVOLUTION of the universe includes Abiogenesis

Spend a few hours looking over the threads in this forum and see how wrong you are.

Evolution has nothing to tell us about the origins of life. Evolution is about the origin of species.

Certainly the emergence of life from nonliving matter is a question that must concern anyone who disbelieves in a Creator, but it has nothing to do with evolution.

reply to post by Astyanax

Yep and god is not a very good conclusion for anyone to draw. Just doesn't explain anything any better. Also just for anyone curious, a quote:

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.
Some facts about the origin of life are well understood, others are still the subject of current research. The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes. The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), just a few hundred million years younger than Earth itself.[1][2] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[5][6]
On the other hand, the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).

Read more: wiki.answers.com...

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Methuselah

 

the EVOLUTION of the universe includes Abiogenesis

Spend a few hours looking over the threads in this forum and see how wrong you are.

Evolution has nothing to tell us about the origins of life. Evolution is about the origin of species.

Certainly the emergence of life from nonliving matter is a question that must concern anyone who disbelieves in a Creator, but it has nothing to do with evolution.

I'd like to point out "Your Honor" that just because it is agreed upon by the majority if this thread that I am wrong, does not make that notion an undeniable fact. Majority opinion has proven itself to be wrong in the past several times.

Now if you would like to wrap it up in a nutshell and explain why Abiogenesis is not included in the EVOLUTION of the universe please do so. The evolution of the universe starts at its origin and ends at the prediction of what may happened based on our hypothesis and scientific principles/laws.

ABiogenesis is definitely included in that process and cannot be excluded, doing so indicates an effort to cover up some major theory holes.

so your little statement attempting to make me sound like an idiot, im sorry but you have some explaining to do since i did go through and read this entire thread and found that the evolutionist (or its defenders) just bounce around with semi-related references that really dont explain anything other that a solid principle and a prediction with no supporting evidence for the hypothesis stated.

Evolution is just as empty as Creation at its best.
At least Creation actually has supporting evidence for its predictions, evidence we have witnessed for the past couple thousand years.

Originally posted by Methuselah

At least Creation actually has supporting evidence for its predictions, evidence we have witnessed for the past couple thousand years.

That has to be the most laughable statement I read on ATS before. Enlighten us please, what evidence are you talking about...and what religion? Hindu creation, Buddhist creation, Muslim creation...which one?

As for the theory of evolution, it clearly only concerns itself with biodiversity on earth. You try so hard to claim it's a theory about the evolution of the universe, just so you can fit in abiogenesis (or the creationist version of it), but in reality, the theory has nothing to do with the universe.

I really hope you see the difference between the theory of evolution and the evolution of the universe

reply to post by Condemned0625


I think the Pope has to prove the existence of God first before he can prove the Big Bang!!!

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Methuselah

At least Creation actually has supporting evidence for its predictions, evidence we have witnessed for the past couple thousand years.

That has to be the most laughable statement I read on ATS before. Enlighten us please, what evidence are you talking about...and what religion? Hindu creation, Buddhist creation, Muslim creation...which one?

As for the theory of evolution, it clearly only concerns itself with biodiversity on earth. You try so hard to claim it's a theory about the evolution of the universe, just so you can fit in abiogenesis (or the creationist version of it), but in reality, the theory has nothing to do with the universe.

I really hope you see the difference between the theory of evolution and the evolution of the universe

The bible clearly predicts that animals and plants will bring forth after their kind - and we have observed, tested and demonstrated just that. Kind and species are two separate terms... you can have two different species and they be the same kind of animal.

so go ahead and laugh at that scientific fact found in the bible. yes evolution has observed the same thing but evolution likes to take the leap of faith into the world of species can evolve beyond their kind and into something else if you give it enough time.

Oh also, the bible says that the stars are for signs for seasons... and guess what... they can be used for signs for seasons... if we didnt have technology to make us so lazy like google weather, we could use the stars to tell what season it is and when about the changes would occur. not to mention they are used to days and years. hmmm interesting

the bible says that God established the foundations of the earth upon the seas (and guess what, there is still water under the crust of the earth in some places)

the bible says that man has dominion over the earth... and guess what - we do.

but the main part is this - everything brings forth after its kind - doesnt matter how many different ways your cross breed -you still get the same kind of organism... perhaps a different species i can agree on that. but it is still accurate with Genesis. and anything beyond that is just a prediction supported by no evidence, and it would also fall out of line with Genesis.

reply to post by Methuselah


And then again, the bible claims that men popped up on earth in his current form...which of course is total hogwash.

Also, you do realize that the bible can't be considered proof, right? It was written by MEN, and we all know how "honest" they are when writing stories.

reply to post by Methuselah

The bible clearly predicts that animals and plants will bring forth after their kind - and we have observed, tested and demonstrated just that. Kind and species are two separate terms... you can have two different species and they be the same kind of animal.

The word 'kind' isn't even a scientific term. The word you may be looking for is genera or maybe family? What passage does the bible show that 'animals and plants will bring forth their kind'?

so go ahead and laugh at that scientific fact found in the bible. yes evolution has observed the same thing but evolution likes to take the leap of faith into the world of species can evolve beyond their kind and into something else if you give it enough time.

Evolution doesn't 'like' to do anything, it is in no way a sentient process

Oh also, the bible says that the stars are for signs for seasons... and guess what... they can be used for signs for seasons... if we didnt have technology to make us so lazy like google weather, we could use the stars to tell what season it is and when about the changes would occur. not to mention they are used to days and years. hmmm interesting

That's because the people living in that era were proficient in using the stars to tell what season it was. Not the other way round.

the bible says that God established the foundations of the earth upon the seas (and guess what, there is still water under the crust of the earth in some places)

The bible also says that god created the heavens and the earth first then he created light (the sun). When in fact we know that the sun was created first.

the bible says that man has dominion over the earth... and guess what - we do.

We do now, we haven't always been the dominant creatures. Dinosaurs were the dominant creatures for 250 million years. We never came on the scene for another 64.9 million years after they died out.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Methuselah

 

And then again, the bible claims that men popped up on earth in his current form...which of course is total hogwash.

Also, you do realize that the bible can't be considered proof, right? It was written by MEN, and we all know how "honest" they are when writing stories.

and modern scientists arent of the same blood? lol

actually it doesnt claim that either - keep reading
I believe you will find that in the first few chapters you will come across the phrase "there were giants in the earth in those days"

and why would it be hogwash? because we find bones that appear to look similar to both apes and humans? wow great observation there, but the conclusion is hogwash assuming that one turned into the other over time.
something we never observed, tested or demonstrated... therefore not scientific.

we cant trust any source of history based on your logic... why? oh yeah because it was documented by humans...

The word 'kind' isn't even a scientific term. The word you may be looking for is genera or maybe family? What passage does the bible show that 'animals and plants will bring forth their kind'?

Just read the first chapter of Genesis, its not very long...
yes i understand that "kind" is not a scientific term, but its a term that is easily understood logically - any pair that can bring forth are of the same kind - and i understand that when decent with modification happens and species grow far apart, they can no longer breed... thats understandable. but that still does not contradict the bible. it is still the same kind of animal and nothing else... whatever scientific term defines that: throw that in there, i dont care. you get my point i hope.

That's because the people living in that era were proficient in using the stars to tell what season it was. Not the other way round.

oh really? and most people today cant name off and few of the constellations... you know how long it would take to study the stars in order to figure out that they can be used for seasons, for months and years? even if what you are saying is true, people back then had to be intelligent to know that. you dont just stare up at the sky one day and go "hmmm ill bet the sky will look something like this in lets say... 360 days"
really flawed logic there budd

The bible also says that god created the heavens and the earth first then he created light (the sun). When in fact we know that the sun was created first.

actually he said he created light on day one, the sun wasnt until day 4.
and we know for a fact that the sun was created before the earth?
who documented that? a human? remember you cant trust them.... any other sources?
you really need to read Genesis before trying to pick it apart.

We do now, we haven't always been the dominant creatures. Dinosaurs were the dominant creatures for 250 million years. We never came on the scene for another 64.9 million years after they died out.

again who is reporting this? oh yeah thats right... man... careful
you do know that you are throwing information out there that really has no foundation.
we know these numbers based on what? index fossils? radiometric dating that has been known to fail time and time again? a book written be charles lyell that threw out random numbers before radiometric dating was even invented to verify these assertions?
the list is endless and quite humorous...

reply to post by Methuselah


Are you seriously asking what's the difference between the bible and scientific studies? Really???

You do realize that scientists need to provide backup evidence for all their claims...something the bible doesn't.

As for your general view of evolution, it looks like you never bothered to read up after hearing a few things about Darwin. You do realize we have DNA evidence to prove humans and today's apes had a common ancestor, right? It's not "just fossils"

And lastly, I don't think you know what radiometric dating really is. The bible isn't just off by a few hundred/thousand years...it's off by several hundred million years!!! When it comes to earth, it's even off by a magnitude of a couple of BILLION years.

reply to post by MrXYZ


ROFLMAO

you are so brainwashed its not even funny.

DNA proves that we are related really?
go read about nucleotides and how fatal to an organism it is to change just a few - EVER.
and yes i know what radiometric dating is. its a flawed technique is what it is... anyone can gather that much when the KBS Tuff was dated and then redated because they found something in there that "didnt fit the theory"
complete and utter BS is you ask me.

Scientists need enough to support their theory, they dont need proof. and if anyone is not as qualified as them in their field, they can BS anyone... remember, man isnt honest... and im quoting you now.

The bible is off by millions of years because the in order for the theory of evolution to survive at all, it needs those millions of years. when in fact, the small changes we see in everyday life and through the span of a ferw centuries, we can reasonably conclude that we really dont need millions of years, we only need about 10k if the bible is true. thats based on observations we can observe, test and demonstrate too.. not just some made up numbers.
Charles Lyell had no proof - and you expect me to believe that today's scientists just so happened to come up with the same numbers with their methods of verification? i dont think so... that is complete BS again!
I understand how radiometric dating works its actually a very simple principle and there are different types you can use based on the type of material you are dating.

Are you seriously asking what's the difference between the bible and scientific studies? Really???

and i really dont know what this question was about, but i take offense since it really made no point and didnt not reply to any of my statements in the previous post. it came across as condescending and outright ignorant.

reply to post by Methuselah


So you're a proponent of the young earth theory because the bible tells you so?

You need to watch the following to understand why rational people might laugh at you


Watch the entire series, totally worth it

reply to post by Methuselah

we only need about 10k if the bible is true

But it clearly isn't because we have human and animal remains that are FAR FAR FAR FAR older. So clearly, if you take the bible literally, the 10k year hypothesis is hogwash and has no evidence to back it up other than the bible...not that the bible could be considered evidence in the first place as so much of it has already been debunked.

For crying out loud, we have pieces of art that are older than 35,000 years!! Source

reply to post by Methuselah


You're mixing up the replies there between me and MrXYZ

oh really? and most people today cant name off and few of the constellations... you know how long it would take to study the stars in order to figure out that they can be used for seasons, for months and years? even if what you are saying is true, people back then had to be intelligent to know that. you dont just stare up at the sky one day and go "hmmm ill bet the sky will look something like this in lets say... 360 days"
really flawed logic there budd

The Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Maya etc. all ancient civilisations that were extremely advanced in astronomy and using the stars to navigate. They had nothing better to do at night time

History of astronomy

actually he said he created light on day one, the sun wasnt until day 4.
and we know for a fact that the sun was created before the earth?
who documented that? a human? remember you cant trust them.... any other sources?
you really need to read Genesis before trying to pick it apart.

Ohh and there's a difference between creating light and the sun in that context is there? We know that planets are created from the remaining dust left over from star formation. We have evidence to back up our claim.

Planetary Formation

again who is reporting this? oh yeah thats right... man... careful
you do know that you are throwing information out there that really has no foundation.
we know these numbers based on what? index fossils? radiometric dating that has been known to fail time and time again? a book written be charles lyell that threw out random numbers before radiometric dating was even invented to verify these assertions?
the list is endless and quite humorous

Yet again you are wrong, we can date the age of these roughly by which sedimentary layer they are in and more accurately with radiometric dating.

The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years

Radiometric Dating