Teh Creationist Thread

[Berzerker]

Berz, the moon-forming impact occured less then 100 million years after the Earth formed, not 600 million years after.

The collision is estimated to have happened 4 bya, meteorites date 4.5-4.6 with some estimates for the Sun if not the solar system going back 5 bya.

The oldest rocks are in a rock formation in the Northwest Territories that are just under 4.1 billion years old. Geologists have also found 4.4 billion year old zircon crystals that show evidence that there were bodies of water at even that early date.

I haven't heard about the crystals but just under 4.1 is close enough. But if there were already bodies of water at 4.4 bya, that supports what I've said. And if the Earth dates back to 4.5 bya, are you suggesting the moon forming collision happened 4.4 bya? Thats 100 million after the Earth had formed.

Oh, and you are loony with your obsession with reconciling science and myth. Sometimes a fairy tale is just a fairy tale.

Not when its worldwide... The Flood stories point to actual floods identified by modern science. The science supports the mythology, and not one skeptic has shown otherwise.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by CyberShy

What matters in here is if the Bible is consistent or not. If the Bible is inconsistent in itself, then it has a problem.

Your response shows that you don't understand what this kinda debates are about.

The true arrogance of a 'believer'.

In a debate on scientific evidence/plausibility in the Bible, you fall back on the tried and trusted 'you don't know what you're talking about' schtick.

What temerity.

Of course the Bible is inconsistent- it was written by more than one person at different times and culled from more than one source.

Genesis has two accounts of the Creation- a fact which was recognised by Biblical scholars as long ago as the 18th Century.

like I said in my post, I explain how the Bible sees stuff.

No, you do a great job of explaining how YOU see STUFF in the Bible.

But then as I recall, you were the one who denied the explicit violence in the account of the expulsion of the money-lenders from the Temple.

Sometime people see what they want to see.

It doesn't matter if that's scientific been proven or not.

Of course it doesn't- unless you're trying to prove that the Bible is somehow offering literal, rather than metaphorical truths.

As Obi Gyn seems to be. Did the Hebrews regularly use the word 'day' when they meant periods of say, 100 000 years ?

Or were they able to conceive of greater periods of time ?

That's obviously the easiest response one can give.
"Someone says something that goes totally against my opinion in, he most probably doesn't have a clue, while I have!"

Must be why you chose it, eh ? :

Your response shows that you don't understand what this kinda debates are about.

[Robert]

Molly Bloom, once again I repeat, you don't understand what this debate is about.
Imagine we're going to debate The Lord of the Rings of tolkien. And we are going to talk about the question if the book is consistent and if the book has holes or weak parts.

Then one can see: "Tom Bombadill can wear the ring without becoming invisible, how is that possible?" or "Why is Faramir, a less honorable person then Galadriel not tempted by the ring?"

those are good questions one can ask, and others may come with reasons, answers, thoughts and ideas.

Now imagine that someone comes in and says: "It's been proven by science that there are no elves and rings that make people invisible."

That's such an out of place argument. And that's the way you are trying to debate here. And it shows that you have no clue.
When I said that I try to debate from the view of the Bible, then I do obviously mean that that's the way i think the Bible speaks. I just meant that comment in the line of "Argument from within" and not an outside argument. We were debating Cain and Able, and I tried to show how it could be possible from within, how the Bible displays that event. Ignoring for a moment the scientific possibilities.

If you are unable to analyse stories, books, myths, historic books, history, legends, faith, etc. from another perspective then your own 21st century perspective, then you are simple someone that should be ignored in real mature discussions.

When we discussed the expulsion of the money-lenders from the Temple, I try to look at that story from a within perspective, placed in a certain time and context. I try to see it from a religious point of view, since the temple square is a religious place. Obviously one can look at it from a 21st atheistisic scientific context, I don't think that's the right way to analyse stories like that.

Sometime people see what they want to see.

It's obvious that there are no real objective parties, That counts for both you and me. But try at least to understand the other party a little bit more. If you want to question jewish or christian stories from within, then you have to understand them first from the within perspective. If you don't want to do that, then you will never really be able to talk with someone with different ideas then you do.

If you want to defeat your opponent in an argument then you have to understand your opponent first.

Genesis has two accounts of the Creation- a fact which was recognised by Biblical scholars as long ago as the 18th Century.

That you speak about "Biblical scholars" in general and about "facts" that were "concluded" and apparantly are widespread accepted shows that you have no clue at all about theology.

I can tell you that the professor that lectured me on the genesis account agreed that there were multiple valid explanation on the gen1/gen2 account. She is a secular, non-christian professor, teaching on a secular non-christian university.

I'm studying theology, that makes me not more right then you in any way. But it's a little bit laughable that you claim that much wisdom on a topic that you most probably know so little about.

The Gen1 is meant as a general creation account and Gen2 is meant as a garden of eden creation account is a very valid view. I won't say it's the factual true view, I don't think that we can ever be sure about that. But there are many reasons to say that there are multiple explanations. For that reason alone it's really stupid and only a clear proof of ignorance if any person claims that the Bible is wrong "Because it has 2 creation accounts"

I can tell you that it has more then 10 creation accounts, and it's even valid to say that they do not match at all. Like it's valid to say that the difference can be explained. There's so much about theology that you don't know, there's so much about the Bible, the Hebrew culture, the Hebrew language, etc. etc. you don't know, and that's fine. We all know little in the end.
But the way you talk about facts and truths etc. really makes you look very very silly.

Of course it doesn't- unless you're trying to prove that the Bible is somehow offering literal, rather than metaphorical truths.

I hope that you read that I wrote that the Gen1/2 account can very well be explained as meant to be understood metaphoric?

I hope that you also read that I don't believe that God created the creation in 7 days? Or do you just read my posts with a huge prejustice and do you stick your idea of who I am on me instead of trying to discover who I am?

I don't even know myself who I am in all these theological debates. There are many possible answers and many questions. I have many doubts and many uncertain things. Stuff about which I think through day and night.

And you think you can have a clear view about me? About theology? About the theological consensus? Geezz.

[Arrian]

Now imagine that someone comes in and says: "It's been proven by science that there are no elves and rings that make people invisible."

That's such an out of place argument.

It wouldn't really be out of place if someone were to claim that LotR was TRUE, as opposed to a work of fiction. Since everyone looks at it as fiction, there is no reason to pick at it with cold, hard science.

If the bible were viewed as LotR: a really good story (or rather a collection of stories), and no more, there would similarly be no cause to bring up science.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

But the discussion of whether the "Myths" in the Bible are self-consistent is relevenant as it relates to whether the Bible has Authorship.

Just because you don't think some part's are factually true makes you think that it isn't true. You ignore the point of stories (myths if you will) being used to express truth. Christ did so often in his parables.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Basically you are judging it as nontruth by a 3rd party, instead of judging it internally. That shows that you are already assuming against it.

Jon Miller

[Robert]

Originally posted by Arrian


It wouldn't really be out of place if someone were to claim that LotR was TRUE, as opposed to a work of fiction.

If the debate is about if the Bible is true, or the Genesis account is true, then you're right.
But that was not what we were debating.

Since everyone looks at it as fiction, there is no reason to pick at it with cold, hard science.

I thinkt that those who think that the Genesis account is true is the largest minority (among all minoroties) of the world. (that doesn't make it true by itself, btw)

If the bible were viewed as LotR: a really good story (or rather a collection of stories), and no more, there would similarly be no cause to bring up science.

-Arrian

The funny thing is that the author of LOTR thought that the the Genesis account was true (that doesn't mean literally, I'm not sure where he stood at that point) and the funny thing is that his creation account in the simmarillion echo's the genesis account

For the rest, what Jon Miller said. (that counts for 90% what he says anyway, he's a wise man, you guys should listen to him!! )

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Basically you are judging it as nontruth by a 3rd party, instead of judging it internally. That shows that you are already assuming against it.

Jon Miller

we are judging it as a nontruth by a 3rd party using the contradictions as evidence of it's non truth.

[Jon Miller]

Umm, I don't understand your post or you don't understand mine.

Jon Miller

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Umm, I don't understand your post or you don't understand mine.

Jon Miller

does that mean we just anti intellectually molested one another?

[Arrian]

If the debate is about if the Bible is true, or the Genesis account is true, then you're right.
But that was not what we were debating.

Ok

The funny thing is that the author of LOTR thought that the the Genesis account was true (that doesn't mean literally, I'm not sure where he stood at that point) and the funny thing is that his creation account in the simmarillion echo's the genesis account

Dude, I know my Tolkien.

-Arrian

[germanos]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Molly Bloom, once again I repeat, you don't understand what this debate is about.
Imagine we're going to debate The Lord of the Rings of tolkien.

You've hit the nail right on the head

[Berzerker]

about these "Days" in Genesis, Heaven and Earth were created in 6 "Days" and God "rested" or ceased activity on the 7th Day

if a planet was at the asteroid belt ~4 bya, it would have been the 6th planet. If a collision sent that planet here leaving behind the asteroids as evidence of the collision, that planet would become the 7th planet. 3rd rock from the Sun? Nah, 7th planet from the abyss of space.

A north African creation myth claims God made Heaven and Earth in 4 "Days" and rested of the 5th Day. Before the Earth was pushed to a new orbit, it was the 4th planet from the Sun. After the collision the asteroid belt ("Heaven") became the 5th planetary spot from the Sun.

The Incan "Genesis" depicted "The Creator" as an ellipse, an ellipse connecting or separating two "star" or planet groupings - 4 at the bottom of the picture and 5 at the top with the Sun and Moon on either side of the ellipse. There are 4 inner planets separated from 5 outer planets by the asteroid belt. Ever wonder why the #7 is sacred to so many different peoples? It is the number of the Earth, the "eyes" of Brahma, and in the Incan Genesis the Earth appears as a globe with 7 "eyes" underneath it.

[Berzerker]

oh, some astronomer "Van Flandern?) noticed that the planets follow a rough pattern - each planet is twice as far from the Sun as the one before it. Venus is twice as far as Mercury, Mars is twice as far as Venus, the asteroid belt is twice as far as Mars, Jupiter is twice as far as the asteroid belt, Saturn is twice as far as Jupiter, and Uranus is twice as far as Saturn. The pattern breaks down with Neptune, it would appear 10 A.U. of space (about a billion miles) is enough room for a planet to form further out from the Sun. The problem was Van Flandern was trying to explain why the Earth didn't fit the pattern, it only fit the pattern when the Earth was placed at the asteroid belt.

[Arrian]

The flood stuff makes some sense. It seems possible that there could be a cultural memory of an actual event ~12k years ago.

The rest is awfully strained, Berz.

-Arrian