An Orthopedic Surgeon Explains Her Faith In Creation

reply to post by edmc^2

TextBTW do you know that the Egyptians believed that the earth was supported by pillars; the Greeks said by Atlas; others said by an elephant standing on a turtle that swam in a cosmic sea?

Not true, the intellectual class always knew the Earth is a globe, it is only the less educated that believed in various myths. Kinda like today with creation and evolution..

en.wikipedia.org...

In light of this, the verse is not that surprising.

reply to post by edmc^2


I find it impossible to argue a point with you when you are taking what a book says over what logic demonstrates daily. You quote phrases and say they are scientific when there is absolutely NOTHING scientific to the quotes at all. The stories you reference of the other cultures believing certain things are the same as what you are quoting from the bible and stating as fact. It is just as likely that Atlas is holding the world up as it is that god created the universe. The singularity they have in common is they are all stories.

Just like the one I mentioned, which you have not responded to, with the Epic of Gilgamesh. Please explain how a story written YEARS before Jesus, God or the bible happens to have the EXACT story of the flood that the bible has in it and claims was god's work? Epic of Gilgamesh has NOTHING to do with the bible yet the bible completely and entirely plagiarizes the entire story and attributes it to god's work.

So....whomever wrote the story of the flood in the bible was either a liar or just another story teller. What I am talking about is:

Oral tradition

While folklore can contain religious or mythic elements, it equally concerns itself with the sometimes mundane traditions of everyday life. Folklore frequently ties the practical and the esoteric into one narrative package. It has often been conflated with mythology, and vice versa, because it has been assumed that any figurative story that does not pertain to the dominant beliefs of the time is not of the same status as those dominant beliefs. Thus, Roman religion is called "myth" by today's dominant religions. In that way, both "myth" and "folklore" have become catch-all terms for all figurative narratives which do not correspond with the dominant belief structure.

Back in the day, what those other cultures believed in was FACT to them just as the bible is FACT to you. And just as all the other beliefs have been dispelled as non-sense and crazy, such as the Earth being on the back of a turtle, so has been the unprovable myth of god creating everything.

Just to give you a bit more detail on just how close some are....I will again point to The Epic of Gilgamesh:

The Book of Genesis's Flood Story Mirrors The Epic Of Gilgamesh From Hundreds Of Years Earlier
Here are a number of elements that both Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis share:

1.God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.

2.God knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.

3.God ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew), and the hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat.

4.The arc would have many compartments, a single door, be sealed with pitch and would house one of every animal species.

5.A great rain covered the land with water.

6.The arc landed on a mountain in the Middle East. The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.

7.The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.

8.The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.


Keep in mind the level of detail in these similarities. It's not a matter of just a flood, but specific details: three birds sent out, resisting the call to build the arc, and a single man being chosen by God to build the arc. Then consider that the first story (Gilgamesh) came from Babylon -- hundreds of years before the Bible was even written.

Do you honestly think, based on the similarities above, that those who wrote the Genesis story had not heard the Gilgamesh story? And if they had heard it, and they were simply rehashing an old, very popular tale, what does that say about the Bible?

reply to post by Maslo


That is very interesting, but it just means that belief is pushed back in time, the article mentioned 3 BCE, then it became tradition with the uneducated. Educated people had made the logical guess, they didn't have 100% proof however.

It's fair to say Columbus had faith that the earth was round, and he wouldn't sail off it's edge as some might have thought back then.

Originally posted by edmc^2

OK let start with this one:

“He is . . . hanging the earth upon nothing.”—Job 26:7.

What does the evidence show?

Here:

The earth IS INDEED hanging “upon nothing” (by gravitational force) governed by the “statutes of the heavens”.

So even though the book of Job was written in the 15th century B.C.E., it is scientifically correct and accurate.

If you're going to take that literally, you have to take it all literally...

The planet isn't 'hanging' and space isn't 'nothing'

So Job was incorrect and inaccurate, scientifically or any other way...

The rest of your claims fall apart just as easily, they're claims that have been made by a million creationists before you, and will be made by a million creationists after this. But it's not their fault, they're being fed pseudoscience and misinformation by very dishonest or delusional people.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

Lol how could you possibly know that?

Post to enough different forums that deal with many different subjects and you will find out soon enough.

There have been other polls on ATS over the years on other subjects than creation and evolution and ATS members have been right on in big numbers.
The collective intelligence despite our differences on ATS is the best I have found on the internet.
Despite the difference of opinions we have, I still respect the critical thinking skills of my fellow ATS members.

Except if they get really condescendingly rude, but then they get banned anyway, another reason I like ATS.

No matter how many forums you post in, how many you read, it's a miniscule amount compared to the total amount on the web.

To claim otherwise is folly, and delusional

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by edmc^2
AReturnofTheSonOfNothing is an excellent example of a post from ignorance! Who had neither the capacity or ability to understand basic science.

Approved and stamped by the person who starred it who neither have the brain to figure out the ignorance of the poster.

' Surprized why the mods didn't devolve your post.

edit on 8-8-2013 by edmc^2 because: ..

* Brought to you by religious intolerance (tm).

Because why present an argument when you can just attack the poster ad hominem and (if you have the sheer nerve) appeal to the mods instead?

No you don't understand, what you said was craaaaaaazy

What he believes, the magic space ghost who landed in ancient Palestine to pretend to die for the things he holds against us

That's pretty normal tbh

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Barcs
Appeal to authority is a fallacy

Funny how that works, quote a intelligent person on supporting creation and its an "appeal to authority fallacy" oh and they are still really stupid no matter how many degrees they have too....But quote an authority that supports evolution and it's all good, be intellectually honest and at least admit this sword cuts both ways.

I didn't say she was stupid. I said being a surgeon doesn't validate her position on creation. I don't quote people's opinions on evolution, I quote scientific studies and experiments.

And uh, in Star Wars, Darth Vader had powers from his "belief system". They were observable, and undeniable. Nothing in any religion today comes close to that. When somebody is force choking you, it's pretty logical to believe that it is real.

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by edmc^2
AReturnofTheSonOfNothing is an excellent example of a post from ignorance! Who had neither the capacity or ability to understand basic science.

Approved and stamped by the person who starred it who neither have the brain to figure out the ignorance of the poster.

' Surprized why the mods didn't devolve your post.

edit on 8-8-2013 by edmc^2 because: ..

* Brought to you by religious intolerance (tm).

Because why present an argument when you can just attack the poster ad hominem and (if you have the sheer nerve) appeal to the mods instead?

Hahaha, so you're now crying???

"Religious intolerance"??? Lol.

If you really understand science please address my post below and prove that what I posted are not accurate. That is:

1. The earth is (to use the poetic expression) "hanging upon nothing".
2. The universe had a "beginning".

This is your chance to have an adult conversation.



"reply to post by edmc^2


Ciao

Originally posted by edmc^2



If you really understand science please address my post below and prove that what I posted are not accurate. That is:

1. The earth is (to use the poetic expression) "hanging upon nothing".
2. The universe had a "beginning".

This is your chance to have an adult conversation.

So....which is it? You said earlier that this was a scientific statement yet now you call it poetic expression....the latter being the most accurate description.

And what do you mean by prove your inaccuracy at the universe having a beginning? Does the universe having a beginning imply that it was made by a god?

Originally posted by edmc^2
1. The earth is (to use the poetic expression) "hanging upon nothing".
2. The universe had a "beginning".

Both are unproven. The earth isn't hanging, it's orbiting the sun and constantly moving through space. Gravity is real. It's not "nothing".

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by edmc^2

 

TextBTW do you know that the Egyptians believed that the earth was supported by pillars; the Greeks said by Atlas; others said by an elephant standing on a turtle that swam in a cosmic sea?

Not true, the intellectual class always knew the Earth is a globe, it is only the less educated that believed in various myths. Kinda like today with creation and evolution..

en.wikipedia.org...

In light of this, the verse is not that surprising.

Your correct the "the intellectual class always knew the Earth is a globe" but what I was talking about in the statement you quoted above is the earth (using poetic speech) "hanging upon nothing" not the flat-earth.

And it's fact that indeed the Egyptians believed that the earth was supported by pillars, while the Greeks said by Atlas and others said by an elephant standing on a turtle that swam in a cosmic sea.

Yet the Bible is accurate when it said (again in poetic language) "hanging upon nothing".

Scientifically speaking the earth IS being held by an UNSEEN / INVISIBLE force we now call as GRAVITY.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
1. The earth is (to use the poetic expression) "hanging upon nothing".
2. The universe had a "beginning".

Both are unproven. The earth isn't hanging, it's orbiting the sun and constantly moving through space. Gravity is real. It's not "nothing".

Barcs -- you're not seeing the complete picture.

Let's put it this way:

We know that modern science is a fairly young discipline, some say it got its start sometime around the 16th - 17th century during the Scientific Revolution in Europe.

But the Bible is way older than the Scientific Revolution. As is the case, if you were once alive 3400 years ago and somehow have the ability to observe the earth from outer space, how would you describe the earth from that vantage point?

Using the language spoken 3400 years ago would you say "the earth is being held by a force called gravity" or would you rather say (in a simple poetic expression) "the earth is hanging upon nothing"?

Remember the writers of the Bible didn't have the scientific knowledge like what we have today or the the knowledge of the 16th-17th century Scientific Revolution. Job was an Oriental and Moses who penned it down was a "sheep herder" (although once a powerful ruler in Egypt). How would he say it?

How would you phrase it?

reply to post by edmc^2

Yet the Bible is accurate when it said (again in poetic language) "hanging upon nothing".

It must then also be accurate when it says, in Job no less, that:

He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.

Job 9:6

and when God rebukes Job for talking about things he doesn't really understand when he says:

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone...

Job 38:4-6

But I'm sure the concept of the Earth being upon pillars and having a foundation must be compete metaphor, since it disagrees with your "poetic reading" of the Earth "hanging upon nothing" being a reference to gravity.

Originally posted by Vasa Croe

Originally posted by edmc^2



If you really understand science please address my post below and prove that what I posted are not accurate. That is:

1. The earth is (to use the poetic expression) "hanging upon nothing".
2. The universe had a "beginning".

This is your chance to have an adult conversation.

So....which is it? You said earlier that this was a scientific statement yet now you call it poetic expression....the latter being the most accurate description.

And what do you mean by prove your inaccuracy at the universe having a beginning? Does the universe having a beginning imply that it was made by a god?

edit on 8/9/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)

Please see my reply to Barcs to understand what I meant by "poetic expression".

But same question I asked Barcs - how would you phrase it if you see the earth "hanging upon nothing" 3400 years ago - without the aid of scientific instruments and scientific terminologies?

Edit:

As to this:

And what do you mean by prove your inaccuracy at the universe having a beginning? Does the universe having a beginning imply that it was made by a god?

Since you don't believe in a God or a Creator, there's no point to ask you to disprove it but what I'm asking is if the Bible agree with the scientific finding that the universe (heavens) had a beginning.

The fact speaks for itself, unless you disagree. If so why?

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Yet the Bible is accurate when it said (again in poetic language) "hanging upon nothing".

It must then also be accurate when it says, in Job no less, that:

He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.

Job 9:6

and when God rebukes Job for talking about things he doesn't really understand when he says:

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone...

Job 38:4-6

But I'm sure the concept of the Earth being upon pillars and having a foundation must be compete metaphor, since it disagrees with your "poetic reading" of the Earth "hanging upon nothing" being a reference to gravity.

I see, you have no concept of how poetic the language spoken by the Bible writers 3000 years ago. Too bad, you can't see the beauty of what they said and how accurate they are.

In fact some of what they wrote, we are now just confirming them. Science IS little by little catching up.

Just like the "big-bang" lends to the "beginning" of the Universe at Gen 1:1.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Vasa Croe

Originally posted by edmc^2



If you really understand science please address my post below and prove that what I posted are not accurate. That is:

1. The earth is (to use the poetic expression) "hanging upon nothing".
2. The universe had a "beginning".

This is your chance to have an adult conversation.

So....which is it? You said earlier that this was a scientific statement yet now you call it poetic expression....the latter being the most accurate description.

And what do you mean by prove your inaccuracy at the universe having a beginning? Does the universe having a beginning imply that it was made by a god?

edit on 8/9/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)

Please see my reply to Barcs to understand what I meant by "poetic expression".

But same question I asked Barcs - how would you phrase it if you see the earth "hanging upon nothing" 3400 years ago - without the aid of scientific instruments and scientific terminologies?

Edit:

As to this:

And what do you mean by prove your inaccuracy at the universe having a beginning? Does the universe having a beginning imply that it was made by a god?

Since you don't believe in a God or a Creator, there's no point to ask you to disprove it but what I'm asking is if the Bible agree with the scientific finding that the universe (heavens) had a beginning.

The fact speaks for itself, unless you disagree. If so why?

edit on 9-8-2013 by edmc^2 because: Edit

Why would I need scientific instruments or terminologies when I can look at the stars and see the same ones come around each night, every night? That alone would tell me, as a critical thinker, that we are "hanging on nothing".....it would have nothing to do with a god telling me this or giving me some divine inspiration on it.....quite simple logic and reasoning for an observer of the world.

As for a beginning....sure....everything has a beginning. Then it grows and evolves into something else. If it did not grow and evolve it would simply be a stopped moment in time and stay exactly how it was at its beginning point.

And why do you continue to not address my question about the Epic of Gilgamesh? I can continue on that path and show numerous other stories plagiarized for older cultures in the bible if you'd like....but prior to that I would like to hear your thoughts on how The Epic of Gilgamesh happens to have the EXACT same story as what the bible claims happened at a later date than the story was written originally.

I will just point you to a link if you would like to dispute the claims there....there are far too many to list here.

Was the bible plagiarized from other works of fiction?

I won't hold my breath waiting on your reply.......

reply to post by Vasa Croe


You said:

Why would I need scientific instruments or terminologies when I can look at the stars and see the same ones come around each night, every night? That alone would tell me, as a critical thinker, that we are "hanging on nothing".....it would have nothing to do with a god telling me this or giving me some divine inspiration on it.....quite simple logic and reasoning for an observer of the world.

Sure! It's easy for you to say "quite simple logic and reasoning for an observer of the world".

Yet the intellectuals of the ancient times got it wrong!!!

Like the Egyptians who believed that the earth was supported by pillars; the Greeks said by Atlas; others said by an elephant standing on a turtle that swam in a cosmic sea.

It's ONLY in the 19th-20th century that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that INDEED "the earth is hanging upon nothing" in space.

So you agree then that the Bible is accurate when it said (in poetic expression) the earth is "hanging upon nothing".

Just like what it said in Gen 1:1 of the universe having a beginning is accurate.

As for the Epic of Gilgamesh - funny that you mentioned it, it's a myth and exaggerated stories based on the Great Flood.

The history of Noah and the Great Flood on the other hand is accurate in that it mentions the date, the time, architectural specs and construction of floating vessel - the ark as well as geographical anomalies that we see today.

In any case - I need to split but I'll go into more detail when I come back later. Not much time left to type in the info.

ciao

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

You said:

Why would I need scientific instruments or terminologies when I can look at the stars and see the same ones come around each night, every night? That alone would tell me, as a critical thinker, that we are "hanging on nothing".....it would have nothing to do with a god telling me this or giving me some divine inspiration on it.....quite simple logic and reasoning for an observer of the world.

Sure! It's easy for you to say "quite simple logic and reasoning for an observer of the world".

Yet the intellectuals of the ancient times got it wrong!!!

Like the Egyptians who believed that the earth was supported by pillars; the Greeks said by Atlas; others said by an elephant standing on a turtle that swam in a cosmic sea.

It's ONLY in the 19th-20th century that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that INDEED "the earth is hanging upon nothing" in space.

So you agree then that the Bible is accurate when it said (in poetic expression) the earth is "hanging upon nothing".

Just like what it said in Gen 1:1 of the universe having a beginning is accurate.

As for the Epic of Gilgamesh - funny that you mentioned it, it's a myth and exaggerated stories based on the Great Flood.

The history of Noah and the Great Flood on the other hand is accurate in that it mentions the date, the time, architectural specs and construction of floating vessel - the ark as well as geographical anomalies that we see today.

In any case - I need to split but I'll go into more detail when I come back later. Not much time left to type in the info.

ciao

edit on 9-8-2013 by edmc^2 because: Last min edit: epic myth and exaggeration based on the Great Flood event.

When you come back to explain, please also include the explanation of Job 9:6 and Job 38:4 which contradict the one you referenced of the Earth hanging on nothing yet are written by the same person.

And uh, in Star Wars, Darth Vader had powers from his "belief system". They were observable, and undeniable. Nothing in any religion today comes close to that. When somebody is force choking you, it's pretty logical to believe that it is real.

reply to post by Barcs


A fair assessment, but resurrecting a person back to life after they were dead is "observable and undeniable" as well. But because it's in the Bible nearly 2000 years ago it's not good enough for many today.
What if I were to tell you in the future events will take place that will also be "observable and undeniable", as well.
But by then it will be too late, but it will be God's way of saying to all that are alive at that time, something like
" Try and deny this ! "

I have to wonder with what science knows about microbiology, DNA, and the necessity of proteins to perform many cellular functions and how amino acids create proteins in very complicated strains if Darwin would try to postulate his theory today. He never did try to answer the question of how life began, but sought to prove a common ancestor and species adaptive abilities. It is obvious that species will adapt to their surroundings such as the example of sheep with woolier coats in successive cold winters surviving better and thus the sheep in that region developing thicker coats than sheep that were not in such cold regions.

The nano machines that exist within cells are incredibly complex. I also am amazed that given today's closed educational environment would Darwin even be able to present his findings if they were not in line with the people who now control education did not care for his line of scientific ideas. There is a concerted effort to not allow science to go where the facts dictate today simply because the community does not like the logical reasoning.

A great movie about this is called, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"