Are Atheist Arrogant

reply to post by spy66

Originally posted by spy66
I thought we already established that Evolution was a part of Creation ?

I am getting dizzy going around in all these loops...

It is.

Evolution is a part of creation. Its in the Bible in Black and white.

1: How is evolution part of creation?
2: Chapter and Verse.

I seriously don't understand this and am curious as to how you came to this conclusion.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SpaceJ

 

Actually, I was cooking up some nice chicken.

As for creation vs evolution...we can know for sure. We are sure. There's mountain ranges worth of evidence in favor of evolution, yet none in favor of creationism.

Yes, but some people don't value that evidence as we do. Then they don't even consider it evidence. So to them it's a theory backed by nothing. It's all perception. I certainly believe in evolution. That's where I place my trust. Science to me only validates my own concept of god. My concept of god is not a personal god. I just refer to good old nature as god sometimes.

But to those whose commitment to creation is a conviction of theirs, like a deeply rooted conviction, they cannot help but deny evolution because they don't want to accept that the bible got it wrong or even partially wrong. I wonder though why more Christians cannot come to their own conclusions and reconcile their faith with science.

Because like I said, to me science is the best evidence for god (my idea of god). But some would say my idea of god is no god at all. I just think they are silly then. My concept and theirs aren't really that different. I just don't think god is an identity, a personality, a human-like being, or even someone. To me god is not a "someone". It's a something.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by spy66

 

Originally posted by spy66
I thought we already established that Evolution was a part of Creation ?

I am getting dizzy going around in all these loops...

It is.

Evolution is a part of creation. Its in the Bible in Black and white.

1: How is evolution part of creation?
2: Chapter and Verse.

I seriously don't understand this and am curious as to how you came to this conclusion.

Does it really matter if i do? You have chosen not to believe it anyway!


First you have creation then the creation evolves.

Verse 2. describes nothingness.

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

Verse 3. The cause of Gods spirit moving upon the face of the waters. The Creation of finite energy and matter.

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

The light is a result of a cause.


Verse 6.

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

From this point on everything evolves into what we can observe today.



How does Genesis chapter 1. Explain evolution?

Verse 7.8.9 and 10 are evolving steps.



The evolution of organic matter:
Verse 11.

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

It does say let earth bring forth all this stuff.

The evolution of life in the water:
Verse 20.

Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Cant argue with that either, that is also what evolution teaches us in school.

Living creatures on land:
Verse 24.

Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

As far as i understand this. Genesis chapter one is about creation and evolution. But i guess it depends on the person who reads it.

Science and biology is a good tool to use to understand this.

reply to post by spy66

Originally posted by spy66
Does it really matter if i do? You have chosen not to believe it anyway!

It's a new claim. I like to understand new things. I'm awfully scientific that way.

First you have creation then the creation evolves.

But evolution is a theory that relates to biology. It's a change in frequency of alleles on a species-wide level.

Verse 2. describes nothingness.

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

Ok, no organisms involved here, nothing to do with evolution...

Verse 3. The cause of Gods spirit moving upon the face of the waters. The Creation of finite energy and matter.

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

The light is a result of a cause.

Alright, still nothing biological involved yet. No evolution.

Verse 6.

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

From this point on everything evolves into what we can observe today.

...What? Evolution is a phenomenon that relates solely to biological entities. Living things.

How does Genesis chapter 1. Explain evolution?

Verse 7.8.9 and 10 are evolving steps.

No they aren't....

1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

There's a progress, but none of this relates to species wide change. There aren't any living things.

The evolution of organic matter:
Verse 11.

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

This isn't evolution either. It's the poofing of things into existence. And evolution doesn't relate to the origin of life either.

...this also ignores the vast amount of evidence we have that life started out in the sea and not with plants.

It does say let earth bring forth all this stuff.

True, but that would be abiogenesis, not evolution.

The evolution of life in the water:
Verse 20.

Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

No, this is the poofing of life into the water and air. This also ignores that earth-bound creature.

And you've skipped over a nonscientific part of this story.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The sun comes into existence in the fourth day, which is after plants in this story. Why should I take this story as a scientific account?

Cant argue with that either, that is also what evolution teaches us in school.

...no, it really isn't. According to our evolutionary history the Bible gets the order obscenely wrong.

Living creatures on land:
Verse 24.

Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And living creatures on the land should come before those in the air...

As far as i understand this. Genesis chapter one is about creation and evolution. But i guess it depends on the person who reads it.

Well, you seem to have understood both evolution and Genesis incorrectly.

Science and biology is a good tool to use to understand this.

Yes, that's why I don't let bronze age myths tell me anything about science.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Miss interpreting is the first sign of not being able to read. But as i said it wont matter what i say or do. You have already chosen what you want to put your faith in. There is nothing wrong with that, i have done the same thing.

That is what i said in my post a few pages back.

reply to post by spy66


Spy. Actually you might have some good points here. Here is some info for you.

The sun comes into existence in the fourth day, which is after plants in this story. Why should I take this story as a scientific account?

1. You can grow seedlings in the dark without the effect of Photosynthesis according to the article here.
Here is the link Click me

In 1976, they were ready for their first test with cucumber seedlings. The photomultiplier showed that photons, or light waves, of a surprisingly high intensity were being emitted from the seedlings. In case the light had to do with an effect of photosynthesis, they decided that their next test -- with potatoes -- would be to grow the seedling plants in the dark. This time, when the seedlings were placed in the photomultiplier, they registered an even higher intensity of light. What's more, the photons in the living systems they'd examined were more coherent than anything they'd ever seen.

The key word in verse 1:24

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός ἐξαγαγέτω ἡ γῆ ψυχὴν ζῶσαν κατὰ γένος τετράποδα καὶ ἑρπετὰ καὶ θηρία τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένος καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως

Greek LXX Online

The English translation is "Four-Feet". And here is link for you : Tetrapod

I know the Verse is in Greek, but is my native language. But the meaning is of the keyword is "Four-Feet".
Just thought to drop some info.

Peace

reply to post by Seed76


Genesis was written in Hebrew, not Greek. This language is not found in the original Hebrew versions of Genesis. Why should I take a Greek translation over a Hebrew original?

And please, don't try to argue for the scientific consistency of Genesis. I like penguins too much and would hate to put a sad face on a penguin.

Sure, you can grow seedlings in the dark, but it doesn't change the fact that the order of creation is wrong in Genesis. It also identifies the Moon as a 'light' rather than a reflector. It just gets...soo...many...things...wrong.

In fact, if you're living in the USA, Canada, or Mexico you can prove Genesis wrong quite easily. Look at the sky on the night of the 21st of December. There is a total lunar eclipse. Were Genesis right about the Moon it wouldn't matter that the Earth had gotten in between the Sun and the Moon...

Oh, the Genesis account also puts for the idea of geocentrism.

Now, this doesn't discredit the entire religions of Christianity and Judaism. In fact, they're a lot more robust than the first two chapters of their religious texts. But it's incredibly easy to debunk anything but a metaphorical reading of the first two chapters of the first book of Moses.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Miss interpreting is the first sign of not being able to read.

Yay, I can add illiterate to the list of things I've been called today!

Please, demonstrate how I'm misinterpreting things.

But as i said it wont matter what i say or do.

Actually, it will. I'm not all that stubborn of a guy. The only level of stubbornness I have is wanting evidence and reason in arguments against the position I hold.

You have already chosen what you want to put your faith in.

Which is...nothing. I have no faith to speak of.

But, pray tell, why is it that Christians give up so easily with this stuff? You're saying I'm misinterpreting the Bible....but if I'm misinterpreting it you could actually show me where I'm misinterpreting it and how I'm misinterpreting it. You could actually show me what I'm doing wrong. If not for my sake, than for the sake of others in the discussion.

I'm not saying that Christians are quitters ([sarcasm]unlike atheists, who definitely are[/sarcasm]), I'm just confused as to why they immediately give up when I provide scriptural challenge. They just throw their hands up and say I'm misinterpreting things.

Well, show me the proper interpretation and the criteria used to arrive at that interpretation.

reply to post by Seed76


Yes, one friggin' cucumber seed growing the dark is total proof that the plants didin't require sun when god created them before the sun. I tell you something, go into your local botanical store, buy 10 different seeds, plant them in a room entirely without sunlight...and come back in a week. Those 10 plants will strive, bloom, and sing happy little songs...right?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I do understand why you have been called a lot of things today and probably before. Because you dont understand what you read.

You must have a creation of something first to have something to observe or to have a observer.

With out your big bang theory you wouldn't have had much to talk about. Right?

Your Big Bang theory was created somehow.

In my last post i started out with nothingness and how finite came into existence. Verse 2 in Genesis describes nothingness.

Or how would you describe verse 2. Scientifically?

If earth has no from and no void, would you have a planet earth?

Probably not. Right? Well it depends on if you understand what you read.

To have evolution you must first have a system that can evolve and create the changes that are needed to have evolution. You need the foundation for evolution to have evolution. That is a scientific fact.

You would need a system that earth and the system around it provides. If not you you have nothing to talk about.

Genesis chapter 1. doesn't describe the details on how evolution takes place. But that does not mean evolution doesn't take place. But again it depends on how understand what you read. Or how you want to understand it.

You have made your choice on how you want to understand it. And you dont want to understand it, because you dont understand what you read in Genesis chapter 1. Plain and simple. You read the text and you compare it to science, but you dont understand how the science fits in, so you ignore it or deny it.

reply to post by Seed76


I agree. If there is no sun earth would be cold and dark. So how did things grow on earth?

It is probably better that i ask you. That way you would have to think about it. Because that is all you have to do to understand your own question.

To be honest. I dont think you have the knowledge to figure it out. because if you did, you wouldn't have asked the question.

reply to post by spy66


The Sun loses great mass and size daily.

Just imagine how massively HUUUUUUUUUUGE the Sun was 'billions' of years ago. By mathematical estimates it would have been over half the distance it currently is to the Earth. (93 million miles)

reply to post by spy66

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I do understand why you have been called a lot of things today and probably before. Because you dont understand what you read.

I'm sorry, but I do understand what I read. I've had an adult reading comprehension level since I was in the second grade. How dare you say I don't understand what I read without showing me what I'm not understanding. This is the epitome of arrogant and dismissive statements, simply claiming to have an authority over the understanding of something without any demonstration of such.

But I guess since you can't demonstrate how my understanding is wrong, and since I challenge the position you hold, I must be deserving of being called names.

You must have a creation of something first to have something to observe or to have a observer.

With out your big bang theory you wouldn't have had much to talk about. Right?

Your Big Bang theory was created somehow.

...um...no...the Big Bang happened some how. Sure. But that doesn't imply that it was created.

And again, you seem to not understand the scientific principle I was trying to help you with. A theory isn't predicated on whether or not it explains the origin of the phenomenon it sets out to explain. It just explains the phenomenon itself. Evolutionary theory didn't initially account for why there was a change in species because there wasn't a proper understanding of genetics at the time.

In my last post i started out with nothingness and how finite came into existence. Verse 2 in Genesis describes nothingness.

Or how would you describe verse 2. Scientifically?

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the law of conservation of matter and energy: Matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

Scientifically there is no basis for stating that there was ever "nothing".

Now, I would describe verse 2 of Genesis thusly:

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

There was an Earth...clearly there was an Earth with waters. It had waters, so there was basically a giant lump of matter that included water.

If earth has no from and no void, would you have a planet earth?

Well, there were waters...so there must have been some sort of way for the water to be there...so there was something akin to a planetoid with water on it.

Probably not. Right? Well it depends on if you understand what you read.

More arrogance. Please demonstrate my misunderstandings in detail if you're going to keep claiming that you're understanding something that I'm not.

Take me as an example, I'm trying to patiently explain to you how scientific theories work, even if you're repeatedly ignoring everything I'm saying on the matter.

To have evolution you must first have a system that can evolve and create the changes that are needed to have evolution.

...systems don't evolve unless they reproduce and pass on information to successive generations. I already explained this to you. Evolution is based on a change in genetic information on a species level, not on simple change.

You need the foundation for evolution to have evolution. That is a scientific fact.

...genetics are the foundation of evolution. Your tautology does nothing to address any sort of scientific fact. A proper scientific fact was that you need one thing for evolution

Life which reproduces with genetics

You would need a system that earth and the system around it provides.

Earth doesn't have a system around it...unless of course you're a geocentrist, as the Genesis account is geocentric. Earth is part of a greater system, not the main feature in a system.

If not you you have nothing to talk about.

So...because Genesis talks about the Earth's formation...and you need an Earth for evolution...it talks about evolution. I'm sorry, but that's not a logical train of thought.

Genesis chapter 1. doesn't describe the details on how evolution takes place.

It doesn't even mention anything akin to evolution. It doesn't mention successive changes over generations, it doesn't have the forms of life created in evolutionary order, it just has things being magically poofed into existence.

But that does not mean evolution doesn't take place.

Of course. I'm not going to rely on the scientific illiteracy of some bronze age nomads to dictate what does and doesn't occur.
But within the story there is no evolution.

But again it depends on how understand what you read. Or how you want to understand it.

I want to understand it as written. Unless of course you can point out why I'm misunderstanding it.

You have made your choice on how you want to understand it.

Yes, I understand it as it is written. Hell, I've studied it in Hebrew with rabbinical scholars. It's sort of ironic that you're telling me that I don't understand it.

And you dont want to understand it, because you dont understand what you read in Genesis chapter 1.

Demonstrate to me how I don't understand it.

Plain and simple. You read the text and you compare it to science, but you dont understand how the science fits in, so you ignore it or deny it.

I'm sorry, but I did read the text and I did compare it to science. It's a geocentric, flat-Earth in which life is magically poofed into existence out of evolutionary order with surface plant life preceding sea life, with birds preceding land animals, with the sun and moon (which is described as a light) coming after plant life.

Unless you can demonstrate how the Genesis account fits in to science, you're wrong.

reply to post by spy66

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Seed76

 

I agree. If there is no sun earth would be cold and dark. So how did things grow on earth?

Plain and simple, they didn't. Because the book is a myth.

It is probably better that i ask you. That way you would have to think about it. Because that is all you have to do to understand your own question.

I thought about it...and....it's because the book is wrong.

To be honest. I dont think you have the knowledge to figure it out. because if you did, you wouldn't have asked the question.

Yet another plainly arrogant statement. Claiming to have hidden knowledge that would solve an insane scenario without revealing it.

Please, tell me how plants could have survived or how the Earth wouldn't have frozen without the Sun.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by spy66

 

The Sun loses great mass and size daily.

..compared to the Earth maybe, but on the stellar scale it doesn't even register.

Just imagine how massively HUUUUUUUUUUGE the Sun was 'billions' of years ago. By mathematical estimates it would have been over half the distance it currently is to the Earth. (93 million miles)

I'm sorry, but "numbers I randomly think up in my head" aren't "mathematical estimates". Please provide some actual mathematics based on empirical observations of the rate at which the sun is losing mass that show that the Earth would have an added 46.5 million miles to its radius billions of years ago.

...to save you the trouble, I know you actually can't. You're showing an incredible level of ignorance with regard to stellar mechanics and then claiming that your ignorance proves something. And the atheists are the arrogant ones?

reply to post by MrXYZ

Yes, one friggin' cucumber seed growing the dark is total proof that the plants didin't require sun when god created them before the sun.

Well, you clearly missed the point. I suggest you read the article again, in combination with the posts above. It´s not so hard to understand it.

I tell you something, go into your local botanical store, buy 10 different seeds, plant them in a room entirely without sunlight...and come back in a week. Those 10 plants will strive, bloom, and sing happy little songs...right?

Now, let me tell you something. Sometimes is better to think twice, before you make such a reply.



Peace

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Genesis was written in Hebrew, not Greek. This language is not found in the original Hebrew versions of Genesis. Why should I take a Greek translation over a Hebrew original?

It´s up to you which version you want to use. I am using the Old-Greek LXX, cause it´s the closest to the original Hebrew.

And please, don't try to argue for the scientific consistency of Genesis. I like penguins too much and would hate to put a sad face on a penguin.

Why should i argue?? I do not. The Bible is not a Science book. That´s why i do not understand what´s the point all the threads about Creation/Evolution. Creation in the Bible requires a Creator while Evolution does not. I do not know what is the situation in America, but in Greece where i am living we have a separation between Science and Religion. In fact i didn´t knew that is a big issue in America, till i joined ATS.

Sure, you can grow seedlings in the dark, but it doesn't change the fact that the order of creation is wrong in Genesis.

But it is possible that plants could have grown without sunlight, even if the Sun came after the plants. But we do not know, because we weren´t there.

It also identifies the Moon as a 'light' rather than a reflector. It just gets...soo...many...things...wrong.

But it doesn´t change the fact that the Moon shines.

In fact, if you're living in the USA, Canada, or Mexico you can prove Genesis wrong quite easily. Look at the sky on the night of the 21st of December. There is a total lunar eclipse.

Well i am living in Greece, and i do not know if we have clear sky to watch that event. If not i only hope that someone can post some good Photos.

Were Genesis right about the Moon it wouldn't matter that the Earth had gotten in between the Sun and the Moon...

Not quite sure what you are implying here. I do not recall that in Genesis says about Lunar Eclipse.

Oh, the Genesis account also puts for the idea of geocentrism.

Also that the Genesis account requires a Creator.

Now, this doesn't discredit the entire religions of Christianity and Judaism. In fact, they're a lot more robust than the first two chapters of their religious texts.

Of course it does not discredit.

But it's incredibly easy to debunk anything but a metaphorical reading of the first two chapters of the first book of Moses.

Then i suppose it´s alright to make fun of it? And why would a normal person try to debunk it. What´s the point. The Bible is not a science book. I do not think it´s so hard to understand it.

Oh by the way, i have posted a link on my previous post here it´s worth to read it. It simply says that the BBT could be wrong. The reason for it is that they discovered a cluster that according to the BBT shouldn´t even exist. And if that´s true, then the Scientists, gonna have to rewrite the BBT and the Theories before.

Peace

Originally posted by Seed76

and sing happy little songs...right?

Now, let me tell you something. Sometimes is better to think twice, before you make such a reply.

I guess Metal is quite Happy

Slam-dance for Jesus !!!

reply to post by Seed76

Originally posted by Seed76
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Genesis was written in Hebrew, not Greek. This language is not found in the original Hebrew versions of Genesis. Why should I take a Greek translation over a Hebrew original?

It´s up to you which version you want to use. I am using the Old-Greek LXX, cause it´s the closest to the original Hebrew.

Well, you could just use the original Hebrew, which can be found on the website you actually provided a link to, Blue Letter Bible.

And please, don't try to argue for the scientific consistency of Genesis. I like penguins too much and would hate to put a sad face on a penguin.

Why should i argue?? I do not. The Bible is not a Science book. That´s why i do not understand what´s the point all the threads about Creation/Evolution. Creation in the Bible requires a Creator while Evolution does not. I do not know what is the situation in America, but in Greece where i am living we have a separation between Science and Religion. In fact i didn´t knew that is a big issue in America, till i joined ATS.

Well, that's a good thing. The issue is mainly that...well...some people don't understand that the Bible isn't a purely literal book.

Sure, you can grow seedlings in the dark, but it doesn't change the fact that the order of creation is wrong in Genesis.

But it is possible that plants could have grown without sunlight, even if the Sun came after the plants. But we do not know, because we weren´t there.

Of course we weren't there...but that doesn't mean we can't know. We weren't there for the KT asteroid impact, but we have plenty of evidence to show that it occurred. Now, with regards to the sun not being there...the Earth would be frozen. If the Earth had gone its first 3 days without sun, it would have been a ball of ice.

And sure, some plants could have grown...but that's not in a situation without the sun. That's in a situation without light. Plants still require a certain temperature to grow.

It also identifies the Moon as a 'light' rather than a reflector. It just gets...soo...many...things...wrong.

But it doesn´t change the fact that the Moon shines.

The Moon doesn't 'shine', it reflects. It's a reflector. People in North America who have a clear sky will be able to see the Moon in entire darkness today because the moon won't be reflecting anything.

In fact, if you're living in the USA, Canada, or Mexico you can prove Genesis wrong quite easily. Look at the sky on the night of the 21st of December. There is a total lunar eclipse.

Well i am living in Greece, and i do not know if we have clear sky to watch that event. If not i only hope that someone can post some good Photos.

Actually, we're not going to be able to see it on this hemisphere. It's only visible from North America this time round.

Were Genesis right about the Moon it wouldn't matter that the Earth had gotten in between the Sun and the Moon...

Not quite sure what you are implying here. I do not recall that in Genesis says about Lunar Eclipse.

Genesis refers to the Moon as a light. If this were true it would be impossible to cause an eclipse, as it would simply keep on shining.

Oh, the Genesis account also puts for the idea of geocentrism.

Also that the Genesis account requires a Creator.

...that's another issue entirely. I'm just talking about the demonstrably wrong areas.

Now, this doesn't discredit the entire religions of Christianity and Judaism. In fact, they're a lot more robust than the first two chapters of their religious texts.

Of course it does not discredit.

Yay, we agreed on something.

But it's incredibly easy to debunk anything but a metaphorical reading of the first two chapters of the first book of Moses.

Then i suppose it´s alright to make fun of it?

Well, Genesis 1 doesn't leave much for mocking, but the next few chapters are a bit of a comedic goldmine.

And why would a normal person try to debunk it. What´s the point. The Bible is not a science book. I do not think it´s so hard to understand it.

Unfortunately there are plenty of people on this board that actually think that it is a science book. They think that every single word of the Bible is literal truth from God. Thankfully, most Christians in the Western world disagree with this interpretation.

Oh by the way, i have posted a link on my previous post here it´s worth to read it. It simply says that the BBT could be wrong. The reason for it is that they discovered a cluster that according to the BBT shouldn´t even exist. And if that´s true, then the Scientists, gonna have to rewrite the BBT and the Theories before.

I can't seem to find it on here. And I don't tend to trust science journalism, they overhype things far too often.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Well, you could just use the original Hebrew, which can be found on the website you actually provided a link to, Blue Letter Bible.

Actually i am doing that. I am comparing the words, with it´s meanings. But the Greek words are specific.

And sure, some plants could have grown...but that's not in a situation without the sun. That's in a situation without light. Plants still require a certain temperature to grow.

True, but the seeds are been planted in the Ground or not?

The Moon doesn't 'shine', it reflects. It's a reflector.

True. When you observe the moon from the earth, you do not say "Oh look the Reflector". I hope you understand what i am saying here.

Actually, we're not going to be able to see it on this hemisphere. It's only visible from North America this time round.

Oh. Then i surely hope that someone post something here.

Genesis refers to the Moon as a light. If this were true it would be impossible to cause an eclipse, as it would simply keep on shining.

I think it´s metaphorical meaning.

I can't seem to find it on here. And I don't tend to trust science journalism, they overhype things far too often.

Here is the link. I posted it on page 8 of this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com


Peace

I wanted to post this here because I came upon it and found it relevant to this thread, and probably many more of your threads Cosmic. All I was trying to say here is that if you want to be taken seriously in your quest to do whatever it is you are trying to do with these threads, you might want to have some more respect. It does go both ways you know. The golden rule in ethics, that I believe your own religion promotes, "treat others as you wish to be treated". Once you realize this, maybe you could approach this topic in a better way.

What we want between members of different religious groups is, in a word, "tolerance." Tolerance isn't relativism. It isn't the idea that each person has their own truth. It also isn't anti-realism. You can be tolerant and think that one religion is true, and the rest false. Now, there are limits. I can laugh at the Westboro Baptist Church and Pastor Jones, the almost-Koran-burner, but that's because I'd be laughing at people who are grossly disrespectful. These people waive their right to certain (but not all) forms of respect. Obviously, the minister at Coyne's blog is no Pastor Jones.

Can tolerance really be expected from atheists? You might think No. After all, Christians and Muslims (for example) have things in common. They "believe in belief," as Dennett puts it. They're pro-religion. They're often said to worship the same God (does that concept even make sense, if there isn't a god?). So you might think there's more of a basis for mutual respect there. But surely not really. It's a huge, huge thing to disagree about the divinity of Jesus. It's got to shock Christian sensibilities that Jews and Muslims "just say no." It's got to shock Muslim sensibilities for the Koran not to be seen as the word of God, by Christians and Jews. There's plenty of room for sharp disagreement between members of different religions, as history painfully proves. So surely it's not true that atheists disagree with all religious people just too much for mutual respect to be a possibility.

So here's my suggestion to atheists: speak to the religious as you would have Christians speak to Jews, Jews to Muslims, etc. Making it sound more Kantian than Golden Rule-ish: conduct yourself in a way you could universalize. In other words: follow the policy, where tone is concerned, that you'd want everyone else to follow. How 'bout it?

Blog link to above excerpt

Like I said, this goes both ways. There can be an arrogant atheist, just as much as there can be an arrogant theist. How in the hex can you lump everyone into one group and call them arrogant, without being arrogant yourself? By calling all atheists arrogant you are in a way claiming to personally know that every single atheist is arrogant, does that not by definition make you come off as arrogant? You can't possibly know every atheist to be able to make that claim and not have it be a blatant falsehood.

Posts like this generalizing all persons of a group as anything isn't promoting anything worthwhile. You are only pushing more of a wedge between us with stuff like this. Like the blogger said, if Christians, Muslims, and Jews can manage to get along, then there is no reason why atheists can't get along with everyone, too. So why must you make it out like all atheists are the enemy, or your enemy? Like we are some kind of target? You saw someone else posting about creationism, so you decided to bring yourself down to the same level of targeting? Why?

These threads have been going on for days now, so is it that you can't understand that there are many, MANY more beliefs in the world than yours alone, or is it just that you don't want to understand?

reply to post by Seed76

Originally posted by Seed76
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Well, you could just use the original Hebrew, which can be found on the website you actually provided a link to, Blue Letter Bible.

Actually i am doing that. I am comparing the words, with it´s meanings. But the Greek words are specific.

But that's an incorrect application of translation. Getting more specific by changing the language doesn't prove anything about the original intent of the document. The Greek words, if more specific, are a mistranslation.

And sure, some plants could have grown...but that's not in a situation without the sun. That's in a situation without light. Plants still require a certain temperature to grow.

True, but the seeds are been planted in the Ground or not?

Which would also be frozen.

The Moon doesn't 'shine', it reflects. It's a reflector.

True. When you observe the moon from the earth, you do not say "Oh look the Reflector". I hope you understand what i am saying here.

Well, that's what I think because I understand how astronomy works. Primitive nomads wouldn't have understood this...hence we can't take any of their scientific premises at face value.

Genesis refers to the Moon as a light. If this were true it would be impossible to cause an eclipse, as it would simply keep on shining.

I think it´s metaphorical meaning.

Then why is it mentioned in the same breath as the sun?
It's not a metaphor, it's something that is incorrect, just like

Genesis:

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Unless the sun is also being referred to metaphorically....no dice.
Oh, and also there's the clear fact that the sun and moon are set around the Earth

I can't seem to find it on here. And I don't tend to trust science journalism, they overhype things far too often.

Here is the link. I posted it on page 8 of this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com

I'm familiar with group JKCS 041...and there's nothing odd about them except for how damn far away they are. That thread is one of the reasons I stay away from that part of ATS science sections...
I mean, the thread immediately tosses out the Big Bang theory...even though the discovery doesn't contradict the Big Bang theory, it merely provides a puzzling question about galaxy formation, clustering, and other issues.