It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution compatible with Creation?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


And before you ask where they got it wrong...



Some people (the creationists in particular) get their science from the Bible. Let's see what kind of science is in the Bible.

In Genesis 1, we have the creation of the entire universe in six days about 6000 years ago. 6000 years is an incredibly short length of time for civilization to have been around, let alone the entire universe. The creationists fudge by saying 10,000 years, but the genealogy given in the Bible implies 6000 years, without gaps. Creation in only six days also conflicts with overwhelming scientific evidence. For example, we see distant galaxies as they were billions of years ago, it takes light that long to get to us. The creationists resort to light traveling much faster in the past, or to the creation of this light already on its way to earth.

We notice a couple problems with the events of creation. For example, on day one, we have the creation of light and dark, day and night. The sun and moon are not created until day four. Many Christians assume that the days of creation are actual geologic ages. Even then, the creation of grasses, and whales, and birds (which are all fairly recent in the history of life) are out of order.

In Genesis 3, we are told of Adam's sin. And we have the beginning of sickness, pain, death, misery, thorns, etc. There supposedly was no death before this, so all of the dinosaurs and trilobites were alive in Adam's time.

In Genesis 6 and 7, we have the world-wide flood of Noah. There is plenty of evidence for many regional floods, but not for a world-wide flood. We read of water covering all but the highest mountains. Where did all this water go? Noah's boat was too small to hold all of the species in the world. This Ark apparently did not carry fish, and most saltwater fish cannot survive long in fresh water, and most freshwater fish cannot survive long in salt water. After the flood, the various species dispersed to their current homes, with kangaroos hopping all the way to Australia, without any evidence of their trek.

In Joshua 6, we have Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, so the children of Israel can defeat the Amorites. To be accurate, he should have commanded the earth to stop spinning. To stop the earth's spin, and then start it up again, is a miracle of creation or flood caliber. It should have produced devastating effects, enough to wipe out life on earth.

On a smaller scale, we have bats and locusts (which walk on "all four legs") listed as birds in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. This sloppy classification may be all right for some purposes. But from a scientific point of view, it is silly.

In Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Isaiah, we find that God laid the foundations of the earth, and that it does not move (Psalms 104:5). This is one of the reasons that Galileo was convicted of heresy for saying that the earth moves around the sun.

In I Kings and II Chronicles, we find a circular vessel which has a circumference that is three times its diameter, implying that the author thinks that pi is 3. Pi is about 3.14159..., fairly close to 3. But for any practical purpose, 3 is a perfectly worthless value for pi.

The Bible is, of course, a wonderful source of religion and philosophy. But the authors were not knowledgeable scientists with 20th century information.




I have occasionally heard the following argument from creationists. This one is a quote from Life--How Did It Get Here? from the Watchtower people:

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

First of all, the above list is a significant rewording of the Genesis account of the creation. See Genesis chapter 1 for a comparison. In particular, the above list says, "sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse." Genesis says that God made these lights on the fourth day. Secondly, the Genesis account is clearly not in the order that science would predict, as day and night are created on day one, while the sun is created on day four (after plants were created). And thirdly, the above list is in a fairly logical order; a wild guess by any writer would have to be roughly in the above order. For example, one of the steps is "a beginning." Where would you put that step? I would make it step #1, wouldn't you? And I would probably make my list go from simple to complex, probably ending with man.

Since the writer of the Genesis account of the creation got some of the steps wrong, it is hard to say what the probability is that he got some of the steps right; certainly nowhere near one in 3,628,800, probably very close to one in one. The writer of the above list was certainly naive (or lying) to call it a "striking proof."


Source

Laughable!




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I noticed the source was www.jimloy.com... it has the name pseudo within its content have i not noticed in some of your previous posts that you accuse people of using pseudo scientific sights.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I noticed the source was www.jimloy.com... it has the name pseudo within its content have i not noticed in some of your previous posts that you accuse people of using pseudo scientific sights.


Well then, attack what he wrote by all means and tell me where he's wrong...just like I pointed out what's wrong with the content of the sources other people posted.




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I was just thinking to myself you cant have it both of the ways but who am i to preach.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I was just thinking to myself you cant have it both of the ways but who am i to preach.


I'm not attacking a source just for the sake of it. Even the dumbest person in the world could compile a good post if he sources his information correctly. I am attacking CONTENT.

I have no clue who that guy is who debunked that ridiculous probability figure, but his content is sound.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   
regardless of what you believe or dont believe,ask yourself this one powerful question and only write up your gut feeling response. no 'yeah buts' or 'but so and so said' just post your gut reponse.

Did a vast yet unkown power create the universe?

yes was my feeling.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ewokdisco
 


Yet you can be no more certain with that claim that I can be of the claim that a celestial celebutant puked after an all-night bender and that was how the universe as we know it came into being.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

I noticed the source was www.jimloy.com... it has the name pseudo within its content have i not noticed in some of your previous posts that you accuse people of using pseudo scientific sights.


That site has pseudo in its name because it's replying to pseudo science.

Btw, what exactly is a "pseudo scientific sight"?
That's not something MrXYZ has ever accused anyone of using on this forum.
That's not a term MrXYZ has even used on this forum.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

I noticed the source was www.jimloy.com... it has the name pseudo within its content have i not noticed in some of your previous posts that you accuse people of using pseudo scientific sights.


That site has pseudo in its name because it's replying to pseudo science.

Btw, what exactly is a "pseudo scientific sight"?
That's not something MrXYZ has ever accused anyone of using on this forum.
That's not a term MrXYZ has even used on this forum.


So what up? Why are you guys avoiding my very simpe Q?

Here it is again:

What is the difference between the word "LIGHT" in v3 and v14?

Your answer to this very simple Q will show you where you made a mistake.

Once I have this answered i will tackle some of the "pseudo-science'" you guys keep posting.

And btw - please don't quote a "Creationist aka Creation Science" article if you can. Just address my post using your own understanding if possible.

Just to clarify, let me state this again:

According to latest calculations, the earth is about 4 byo. The book of Genesis does not DISAGREE with this finding.


ty,
edmc2



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


I am afraid that he did use this as an arguments.

MrXYZ

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Of course you can always interpret stuff in ways that make it seem as if they are connected, and I have nothing against philosophy...but except for the scientific explanations of quantum theory, everything else on those sites is pure philosophy and BELIEF. Nothing wrong with that, if they were honest about it...but those pseudo-science websites try really hard to come off as scientific websites, when in reality, they don't even apply scientific method when making conclusions.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


He never said they were using 'pseudo-scientific sight', he just said that a lot of websites that people link to are full of pseudo-scientific philosophy that parades itself around as science. Unfortunately, people are lured in by this because it sounds fancy.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You or your source said:


The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.


"just happened" like "coincidence"?

So your source agree that the writer of Genesis got the sequence of events correct.Interesting. But he is questioning where the writer got the info from and admitted that it's not realistic to get it correct because it came from God?

So if not from a higher source (please help me out here since you seem to know everything) where did the writer of Genesis got his information from?

I really want to know. Of course, to quote you - "back-up your statement with proof".

Then there's this:


the above list is in a fairly logical order; a wild guess by any writer would have to be roughly in the above order. For example, one of the steps is "a beginning." Where would you put that step? I would make it step #1, wouldn't you? And I would probably make my list go from simple to complex, probably ending with man."


So your source is agreeing with geologist Wallace Pratt when he said:


“If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” --


last but not least:


Since the writer of the Genesis account of the creation got some of the steps wrong, it is hard to say what the probability is that he got some of the steps right; certainly nowhere near one in 3,628,800, probably very close to one in one. The writer of the above list was certainly naive (or lying) to call it a "striking proof."


First he admitted that the writer of Genesis got the "the above list is in a fairly logical order" but then followed it with "the writer of the Genesis account of the creation got some of the steps wrong". Seems like he can't make up his mind.

As for probabiblity. Here let me help you out. Since you know pretty much everything.

place 10 goats in a pen, number them 1 to 10, blindfold yourself, and transfer the goats to another pen in the correct sequence. What is the probability that you will get it right the first try?

Still doubt the scientific accuracy of the bible?

Oh, btw, about that pi=3.14159; what would you say when someone ask you to make him a vessel for containing water to make it exactly 3.14159 feet, 100% within the margin error of +/- 0.0001, no more no less?

Would you say, sure no problem - after all you have all the precision tools you need to do job. Besides the water vessel needs to be very precise since it will be used for a very exacting job.

Or would you like him to say - make around or about 3 feet? After all it's for storing water only - who cares if it's off by 0.14159. Hopefuly a loss of 0.14159 water vol will not be of any consequence.

And for the material - use clay and mortar - OK?

btw - any idea what the vessel at I Kings and II Chronicles used for?

So your source is very picky huh? complianing why 3 instead of 3.14. oops - correction - need to be precise ya know - 3.145 -- oops got it wrong again -- 3.14159. There got it right this time.

Hmmm...I wonder what else your super critical source said?


ciao,
edmc2





edit on 24-11-2010 by edmc^2 because: clay



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


No matter how many of the gangs try to help him we all knows what he was trying to say.

Namaste.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


He never said they were using 'pseudo-scientific sight', he just said that a lot of websites that people link to are full of pseudo-scientific philosophy that parades itself around as science. Unfortunately, people are lured in by this because it sounds fancy.


madness, care to help Kali?

here's the Q:

What is the difference between the word "LIGHT" in Gen 1: v3 and v14?

answer it please, pretty please?

edmc2



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


V3 is light and V14 is lights, plurals, more than one.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




Evolution compatible with Creation?


The problem with the rigid and unyielding Creationist and Evolutionist is that neither have enough to form a full picture to support their beliefs. The arrogance displayed on both sides of the battle lines is almost purely for self-gratification.

I'm right, you're wrong and the universe spins on the tip of our flagpole, ya know?

It may well be that both theories, evolution and creation, have a common ancestor and that at some point, they were separated to travel wildly differing routes through time. Someday, we may eventually find the place where they split from their shared journey. However, it will be incredibly unlikely that the extremist elements on either side will ever admit to such a thing.

After a while, it's more about winning an argument than being right.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
I am afraid that he did use this as an arguments.
MrXYZ
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Of course you can always interpret stuff in ways that make it seem as if they are connected, and I have nothing against philosophy...but except for the scientific explanations of quantum theory, everything else on those sites is pure philosophy and BELIEF. Nothing wrong with that, if they were honest about it...but those pseudo-science websites try really hard to come off as scientific websites, when in reality, they don't even apply scientific method when making conclusions.


I guess you don't know the difference between "site" and "sight" either.
Sad.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

madness, care to help Kali?

here's the Q:
What is the difference between the word "LIGHT" in Gen 1: v3 and v14?
answer it please, pretty please?
edmc2


He already answered you.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The difference between light in those verses? I thought I already differentiated the two...I guess I'll recourse to Hebrew then.

Because, you know, a troll often researches and posts sources when people object to claims.
I started out here then I used the handy-dandy "C" button to get the Hebrew words.

In Genesis verse 3 the word for light is: 'owr
From here


Part of Speech: feminine noun

Biblical Usage:
1) light
a) light of day
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)
c) day-break, dawn, morning light
d) daylight
e) lightning
f) light of lamp
g) light of life
h) light of prosperity
i) light of instruction
j) light of face (fig.)
k) Jehovah as Israel's light


Usage of this word as 'the sun' is restrained to only a single passage in the whole Bible, and it isn't Genesis.


2Sa 23:4 And [he shall be] as the light of the morning, [when] the sun riseth, [even] a morning without clouds; [as] the tender grass [springing] out of the earth by clear shining after rain.


In each case in Genesis when the 'sun' is referenced as a light the word ma'owr is used.
From here


Part of Speech: masculine noun

Biblical usage: 1) light, luminary


So an entirely different word is used between the two, that's what the difference is. Hell, one is a masculine noun and the other is a feminine noun.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
reply to post by Kailassa
 


I am afraid that he did use this as an arguments.

MrXYZ

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Of course you can always interpret stuff in ways that make it seem as if they are connected, and I have nothing against philosophy...but except for the scientific explanations of quantum theory, everything else on those sites is pure philosophy and BELIEF. Nothing wrong with that, if they were honest about it...but those pseudo-science websites try really hard to come off as scientific websites, when in reality, they don't even apply scientific method when making conclusions.



In that post I'm highlighting that a website pretends to be scientific...but all it's content is based on PHILOSOPHY. That's not attacking the source, it's attacking the content



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by edmc^2

madness, care to help Kali?

here's the Q:
What is the difference between the word "LIGHT" in Gen 1: v3 and v14?
answer it please, pretty please?
edmc2


He already answered you.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The difference between light in those verses? I thought I already differentiated the two...I guess I'll recourse to Hebrew then.

Because, you know, a troll often researches and posts sources when people object to claims.
I started out here then I used the handy-dandy "C" button to get the Hebrew words.

In Genesis verse 3 the word for light is: 'owr
From here


Part of Speech: feminine noun

Biblical Usage:
1) light
a) light of day
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)
c) day-break, dawn, morning light
d) daylight
e) lightning
f) light of lamp
g) light of life
h) light of prosperity
i) light of instruction
j) light of face (fig.)
k) Jehovah as Israel's light


Usage of this word as 'the sun' is restrained to only a single passage in the whole Bible, and it isn't Genesis.


2Sa 23:4 And [he shall be] as the light of the morning, [when] the sun riseth, [even] a morning without clouds; [as] the tender grass [springing] out of the earth by clear shining after rain.


In each case in Genesis when the 'sun' is referenced as a light the word ma'owr is used.
From here


Part of Speech: masculine noun

Biblical usage: 1) light, luminary


So an entirely different word is used between the two, that's what the difference is. Hell, one is a masculine noun and the other is a feminine noun.





gezzz...this is madness, I keep bouncing from thread to thread to get an answer. This time I'm staying put here.

OK.

Anyway thanks madness for the answer. Excellent.

btw, I use the same site to do my research in addition to my library.

Now one more Q:

V3 - so the hebrew word used here for 'light' is 'owr.

Based on the list, which one do you think is the best, logical meaning of the word 'owr?


ty,
edmc2

hint: a 'light' needs a source.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join