The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How long is the 7th day?

a reply to: raymundoko

Good question. All we know is that god rested on the seventh day. Yet we also know that in the OT god supposedly meddled in the affairs of humans is that still resting though? So at that point I'd say that is any length between immediate after day 6 ended all the way up to today.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Astyanax

What's beyond intelligence is a belief that in a finite universe everything lined up perfectly to create a hospital planet with life with out an intelligent design.

Lined up perfectly? You do realize that 99.9% of the known universe is hostile and instantly lethal to biological life, right? Most of the universe is certainly not perfectly lined up. If every star had a habitable planet, you'd have a point, but it doesn't, which makes design highly unlikely, not to mention incredibly inefficient. When you have trillions upon trillions of stars in billions of galaxies, rarities become inevitable since there are so many possibilities out there. What's beyond intelligence is the idea that any intelligent creator would waste so many materials making such an inefficient design.

Ray, any response to the points in any of my posts yet? You understand what reading comprehension is right?

a reply to: Barcs

I said everything lined up to create A hospitable planet with life. A, as in singular. Not plural.
I didn't say everything in the whole universe was perfect.

Talk about the reading comprehension you mentioned...

a reply to: EternalSolace

Well a singular planet in the entire universe that can support life and does WOULD be a statistical anomaly. Though you can't prove that assertion either, while it would be incredibly easy to disprove it (all you've have to do is find life elsewhere).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And until we do find life else where, it remains a statistical anomaly. That's my whole point when I first began to post in this thread. It's like Barcs said, in a universe that's 99.9% hostile, a planet capable of hosting life, and that does host life, is rare.

My point is it takes a whole lot of faith in those statistical rarities to say there's no intelligent design.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Why is it surprising to find life on a planet whose conditions support life? That's like a puddle marvelling at how the hole it occupies fits it so perfectly:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.

en.wikiquote.org...

a reply to: GetHyped

Really? *sigh*

Did I say finding life on a planet capable of hosting life was surprising? No. I said finding a planet that is capable of hosting life and that does is a rarity.

It's like people don't even try to read. Yeah, I didn't understand a couple of Astyanax's posts, but hell. At least I asked for clarity.



Leaving this thread now. Enjoy folks.

a reply to: EternalSolace

You said:

What's beyond intelligence is a belief that in a finite universe everything lined up perfectly to create a hospital planet with life with out an intelligent design.

This is nonsense and devoid of logic. See: my previous reply.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Barcs

I said everything lined up to create A hospitable planet with life. A, as in singular. Not plural.
I didn't say everything in the whole universe was perfect.

Talk about the reading comprehension you mentioned...

LMAO. You said "everything" lined up. So by "everything" you really mean the things in this tiny section of the universe? Sorry, but there's nothing unusual about that when you consider how HUGE the universe is. Even if the chance of life is one in a billion, it becomes inevitable because there are more than a billion stars out there. Unfortunately we do not know these odds, because we don't have complete knowledge of this galaxy (let alone universe). Also, it's good to know that numerous habitable planets have been discovered. We obviously can't tell 100% if they have life, but they meet the basic requirements.

I love when folks mention reading comprehension, yet don't even fully understand what they typed. It seems to be a dominant theme in this thread.

a reply to: EternalSolace

The largeness and age of the universe give credence to the idea that these things exist in more than one place. Like I said, it is easier to prove my assertion than yours. Also, if we can prove abiogenesis, then you can consider my assertion all but proven as well, since we've reduced life arising to a chemical reaction.

a reply to: EternalSolace

What's beyond intelligence is a belief that in a finite universe everything lined up perfectly to create a hospital planet with life with out an intelligent design.

As finite as it might be it's still a practically incomprehensibly large size.

Google tells me there is roughly 100 billion galaxies in the known Universe, and an average of 100 billion stars in each galaxy. Multiplying the number of galaxies by the average number of stars per galaxy really puts 'finite' into perspective. We then need to multiply that number by the average number of planets thought to orbit a star. That's all the chances for things to have 'lined up'.

I'm not sure on those numbers. I gave the conservative figures. I was seeing higher numbers for both number of galaxies and the average number of stars per galaxy. This isn't my strong suit, but I can appreciate the statistical implications concerning the likelihood of life arising.

There may be intelligent design but I don't think the evidence suggests there is a need for one.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: raymundoko

Good question. All we know is that god rested on the seventh day. Yet we also know that in the OT god supposedly meddled in the affairs of humans is that still resting though? So at that point I'd say that is any length between immediate after day 6 ended all the way up to today.

You seem to be implying that God never returned to work after resting and it seems many have built whole philosophies on that assumption.

It says "He rested on the 7th day", not "He stopped doing anything ever". It is obvious that He was active afterwards from the texts and also it would therefore follow that He is active today.

He didn't wind the key and walk away.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I said everything lined up to create A hospitable planet with life. A, as in singular. Not plural.

So you believe there is only one. Certainly it is a matter of belief whether there are one or many. Barcs has, as always, dealt with this point elegantly and sufficiently; as he has shown, the chances are that there are many and that on some of these at least, life and even intelligence have evolved. Still, you have your Bible.

I didn't say everything in the whole universe was perfect.

Now that raises some interesting questions. Imperfection, as I understand it, entered Creation when Adam, employing the free will that he had been granted, chose to disobey one of God's instructions (what was he thinking?) and opened a door through which came corruption, mortality, sin and so forth.

Let us, then, continue to view things anthropocentrically (as you have been doing). From this viewpoint, we must now ackowledge, knowing what we know, that 100% of the universe (rounding up to, say, the twentieth or thirtieth decimal place) is unfit for human habitation. So: far from perfect, really.

Fascinating as it is, further discussion of this issue is probably off topic for the thread, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway.

My point is it takes a whole lot of faith in those statistical rarities to say there's no intelligent design.

The same error I pointed out to you earlier. The vastness of the universe, which you seem to regard as a prop for your argument, really refutes it.

How's my reading comprehension, by the way?

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: cooperton

How were these biblical writers able to know this? We are left with the conclusion that this was indeed Divinely inspired.

So the biblical writers did not know about the big bang . Are you saying that they made things up .

No they didn't make it up. The copied it from earlier works.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: raymundoko

Good question. All we know is that god rested on the seventh day. Yet we also know that in the OT god supposedly meddled in the affairs of humans is that still resting though? So at that point I'd say that is any length between immediate after day 6 ended all the way up to today.

You seem to be implying that God never returned to work after resting and it seems many have built whole philosophies on that assumption.

Well it never specifically says that he did.

It says "He rested on the 7th day", not "He stopped doing anything ever". It is obvious that He was active afterwards from the texts and also it would therefore follow that He is active today.

So how long is the seventh day and what does it mean to rest? Does his meddling on earth count as part of his rest period or not?

He didn't wind the key and walk away.

Looking at the processes that science describes and how they all build on previous designs to increase complexity (or recursion), if there was an intelligent creator, it is likely that this statement would be false. He did wind the key and walk away.

originally posted by: Barcs
Ray, any response to the points in any of my posts yet? You understand what reading comprehension is right?

That's adorable...You don't even realize how horrible your "points" are. I already addressed them, you just don't like my explanation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

One could argue that even though someone has a day off work they may still run errands...but the question about the length of the 7th day, considering there is no text to indicate the day ever ended like the other days, supports the idea that the previous days were extended periods of time. By all accounts, we are currently in the 7th day/age.

The idea that the day is an age can even be found in early Christian tradition (again, the young earth didn't start gaining traction until the 8th century) in the works of Augustine around the 4th and 5th century. He believed that there were 7 ages of creation and 7 days/ages of men. The 7th age of men comes with the return of the messiah at the end of days. So currently we would be, by his reasoning, in the 6th day/age of man which started with the supposed crucifixion of Jesus.

Augustine is only one example, from my WIKI article posted earlier in the thread:

The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said regarding their interpretation of creation chronology (5). Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours.

a reply to: raymundoko

That still doesn't explain why the 1st age is 67% of the age of the universe and all the others make up the last third. According to that logic, nothing notable happened in the universe during that entire time. No other planets appeared with life. Intelligence didn't arise anywhere because god didn't take the time to develop those planets during this period. Heck it can also make a case that life only exists on earth since god divides the ages up through earth time and spends most of his time micromanaging this tiny blue orb in the vastness of the universe.

a reply to: Astyanax

My view is in no way in direct contradiction.

Source

1 In the beginning God created (bara' " ... stresses that what was formed was new and perfect. The word is used throughout the Bible only with God as its subject."(1)) heaven and earth.
NOTE: The water EXISTED from day one !
And the darkness covered the existing water !
2 The earth was formless ( lit. lie waste, desert ) and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Spirit of God was hovering (brooding) over the water. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light!" So there was light. 4 God saw the light was good. So God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God named the light day, and the darkness he named night. There was evening, then morning-the first day.

On day two a separation is placed in the EXISTING waters !!

6 Then God said, "Let there be a horizon in the middle of the water in order to separate the water." 7 So God made the horizon and separated the water above and below the horizon. And so it was. 8 God named what was above the horizon sky. There was evening, then morning-a second day.

On day three the EXISTING waters under the sky are gathered together !!

9 Then God said, "Let the water under the sky come together in one area, and let the dry land appear." And so it was. 10 God named the dry land earth. The water which came together he named sea. God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the earth produce vegetation: plants bearing seeds, each according to its own type, and fruit trees bearing fruit with seeds, each according to its own type." And so it was. 12 The earth produced vegetation: plants bearing seeds, each according to its own type, and trees bearing fruit with seeds, each according to its own type. God saw that they were good. 13 There was evening, then morning-a third day.

And thus we have the precedent of the covers being rearranged on days two and three as the water is separated and then the surface water gathered !!

So considering the precedent of the rearranging of the water possibly day four also is a rearranging of the COVER, that on day four the LIGHTS THAT EXISTED since day one now can shine brightly on the earth as the atmospheric COVERING is changed, turned from translucent to occasionally transparent, as it is today !!

14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night. They will be signs and will mark religious festivals, days, and years. 15 They will be lights in the sky to shine on the earth." And so it was. 16 God made (" to produce, to prepare, attend to, put in order, to observe, celebrate, to appoint, ordain, institute, to bring about") the two bright lights: the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night. He also made (" to produce, to prepare, attend to, put in order, to observe, celebrate, to appoint, ordain, institute, to bring about") the stars. 17 God put them in the sky to give light to the earth, 18 to dominate the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, then morning-a fourth day.

Take special note of "to dominate the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness." From most every where in our solar system the sun only dominates, but from the surface of our rotating earth one experiences day and night and our moon ( "the lesser light" ) is more apparent ( dominates ) as it goes through its phase changes, even though it is often visible during the day also. Thus, even within the narrative of day four it is pointed out that the perspective is from the surface of the earth.

Conclusion:

a) The narrative of Genesis 1:2 thru 1:19 concerns the phases in which the Spirit of God prepared the surface of the earth to receive the sea, air and land creatures as created on days five and six requiring dry surface land, occasional bright sunshine, and a suitable atmosphere high in water vapor and oxygen. Even the creating of plants on day three adds to this preparation as the plants generate and add oxygen to the atmosphere.
b) On day four the surface atmosphere was changed so that the sun, moon, and stars can now shine brightly on the surface of the earth. The heaven/heavens was not created empty on day one, instead they were filled with the sun, moon and stars, a new and perfect creation as indicated by the Hebrew word bara'.

Like I said, ditch the KJV and use original extant texts in the original language.

Edit:Format