Be A Born Again To Be Enter In The Eternal Glory..

[Bikerman 2]

I am applying it literally, taking it to its core even (the Hebrew language), and deriving the conclusion i have so provided. And it makes sense. But if you are going to try and state an analogy, at least pick one that relates on equal grounds to the Biblical account of creation. Here is the difference between the intentions of the authors between Shakespeare and Genesis: Shakespeare intented his work as fiction, but the Bible is intended as truth. If you cannot provide an example whose work is intended as truth, then you are mentioning things that are irrelevant and not worth mentioning.

Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. They knew that over a millenium ago - Check Aquinas for example. He is quite clear about the matter.

No statement was mentioned that said belief was required, at least from me. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that the scientific statements you mentioned are irrelevant.

No, you mean you would like them to be, but they certainly are not. When you insist that a myth is the truth then I insist that science says otherwise.

I did read it, and it is not Biblically accurate. The only way to claim that these 6 periods of time are equal in length is to know just how long each period is. You do not know such a thing, and it is impossible to derive that from the Bible alone. For that reason it is illogical to state that these 6 different periods of time are equal in length. To make such an assumption and then state it cannot be true is merely a straw man on your part. Simply having the same word repeated does not mean that they are all of equal length, especially since the First Day introduced "day" and "night" without any explicitly defined value for each. One of the things that helps understand Scripture is context. For that reason, if the concept of night and day is to be assumed for the other 5 Days, then we are to use the First Day as reference.

You obviously don't know anything about Hebrew. The fact that the word Yom is used repeatedly is highly significant. Hebrew scholars are quite clear about that so unless you want to show me your Hewbrew qualifications then I think I'll stick with those who actually know what the words mean....For example:-

We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5-2:2 simply by examining the context in which we find the word and then comparing its context with how we see its usage elsewhere in Scripture. By doing this we let Scripture interpret itself. The Hebrew word yom is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words evening and morning together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + evening or morning (23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + night (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day. The context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5-2:2, describing each day as the evening and the morning, makes it quite clear that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. The references to evening and morning make no sense unless they refer to a literal 24-hour day.

Good enough for me.

The only thing that the Bible mentions in the creation account that was formless and void was the Earth. Nothing else is stated to be formless and void. The sun is not required for there to be light and darkness (as implied by the First Day); no math is required for either. Nevertheless, your own statement would mean that when God on the First Day caused light to be, that all the stars in the universe were created. But that is not Biblical, as you show in your next statement in your post.

So you think it is possible to have the sun present but no light? How does that work then? A photonic shield? And you think you don't need the sun for night and day? What causes it then? Does God have a big torch which he keeps turning on and off? You keep saying things are not biblical as though that meant anything...the biblical account is wrong, so the fact that it is not biblical doesn't say anything about the validity... God does not do the impossible - another basic item of theology that seems to have passed you by. Or can God create a weight that he cannot lift? The only way around the paradox of omnipotence is to accept that God does not do illogical things. Again this has been known since the time of Aquinas and a thousand years later you still don't seem to have got it....

And to top it all you think the sun was created before the rest of the stars? What a wacky world you live in.

The same question but in reverse can be asked to you: Where does it say that they are included? "All creatures" does not imply every single living creature to have ever existed. You even state that it is illogical if prehistoric creatures were included, so how then can you derive that they are included? Fortunately, it doesn't, because the Bible only mentions what is relative to us, only things that concern us. If you require reading the remainder of the Bible to see that it only mentions what concerns us, then you may do so.

Not only do you not understand the Hebrew, you don't understand basic English. You cannot have something prehistoric to the creation. How could any animals exist before the Genesis account. The fact that the Genesis account says ALL means ALL - since you insist it is literal. Look it up in a dictionary and you will find that it means all, without exception, each single one, every item.Anything else is not literal and just something you are making up.

Life could not be formed that way if you assume a form of creation other than what can be derived from life. Logically, it could easily be formed that way. Even if we consider prehistoric creatures, these prehistoric events would have occurred before the "water world." The only reason why you say it could not have happened is because perhaps you believe in common ancestry. However, from a Biblical point of view, there are many ways to explain similarities in design patterns of creation. Each "era" that shows some form of "evolutionary scale" could again be more instances of recreation that have merely died out to make room for new creations. That is, the Biblical account would tell of the final form of recreation and a new era (unless God so chooses to create again).

Complete and utter rubbish. How could prehistoric events occur before the creation of the sun, stars and planets? You are starting to gibber now. How could animals exist before there is a universe for them to exist in.There are no biblical explanations, and inventing them is very naughty...

The only thing that would complicate this theory is the Fourth Day. That is, why would the entire surrounding environment of the Earth have to be rebuilt, so to speak? It would be the fastest way to annihilate existence, and it would follow from the heavens folding like a book. While it may be seen as an exaggerated way to cease creation, it nevertheless consistently follows Biblically. Notice that the Earth is in existence in Genesis 1:2 though there is no mention of it being caused into existence except from what can be derived from Genesis 1:1. This implies that if and when any previous eras ceased to exist, the Earth remained in existence (though the rest of the universe ceases to exist).

This isn't a theory, it is a mad nonsensical ramble. You invent the story that the earth already existed before genesis (despite that fact that it is clearly created in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ".
But aside from being 'not biblical' your invention doesn't work, so you now have to invent some whole backstory about annihilating and rebuilding. None of this has nothing to do with the bible - you are just inventing things as you go along and saying it is literal. When it is apparent to the meanest intellect that it is neither literal not logical.

And so we have a seemingly repetitive form of creation that may cease entirely with this era. Since the Earth survived previous existences, this allowed for the fossils you see here today. It is not surprising that God would use similar patterns in later designs, He is a Creator after all. Likewise, it is not surprising to see consistency in the way He does things. None of what i have mentioned in this requires a rewrite of Genesis and some of the information requires extra Biblical reading to even derive, and it fits within our perception of reality.

You are just stringing words together into random sentences with no comprehension of what the sentences mean. Since the earth survived previous existences? Pure science fiction. Nothing to do with any words in the actual account.
You cannot account for a 3 billion year spread of fossils in that manner anyway...unless you think that God had some really really long creative sessions. God would have to be constantly creating new species for about 3 billion years. His arm would get tired and I'm sure he'd get grumpy with that much loss of sleep...

As for your reference to Genesis 2 - that simply destroys the case (as if it were not already destroyed).

[b]Chapter 2.[/b][b]1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.[/b]

So, from Chapter 1 God has already created insects, cattle, sea life, man, woman etc.

[b]2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.[/b]

Fair enough - health and safety legislation would indicate a break was needed.

[b]3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.[/b]

Well, we all like our days off.

[b]4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,[/b]

YOM again - the day referred to is day 1 in Genesis 1.

[b]5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.[/b]

So the trees and grasses existed as seeds up to this point...OK, but this contradicts Genesis 1. The earth is supposed to be covered in water....odd but let's go with it.

[b]6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.[/b]

OK so now we get rain. After the trees and grasses and herbs...odd because this again contradicts Genesis 1...but let's progress...

[b]7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.[/b]

Now I thought that he created man and woman on day 6 in Genesis 1 ?

[b]8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.[/b]

OK..so this 'other' man is put in a garden. Presumably the previous men and women were not the 'chosen people' but this 'Adam' is?

[b]9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.[/b]

So we have an orchard. Nice.

[b]10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.[/b]

OK - an early example of irrigation.

[b]11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;[/b]

So the river Pison surrounds Havilah and Havilah is mineral rich...OK...

[b]12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.[/b]

So we have Gold, Gum trees and onyx..OK..

[b]13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.[/b]

Hmm...this is a problem - the geography is all wrong.

[b]14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.[/b]

This is presumably the Tigris and Euphrates.

[b]15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.[/b]

So Adam is in fact a tennant farmer or serf?

[b]16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:[/b]

Vegan?

[b]17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.[/b]

Hmm...remember this threat for later - it will prove to be a lie.

[b]18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.[/b]

But he already created man and woman in Genesis 1 so presumably this is a 'chosen' woman?

[b]19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.[/b]

So these would be different to the animals already created in Genesis 1? How long did it take Adam to name them all, I wonder, given that there are several million species...?

[b]20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.[/b]

Internet dating? Oops...a bit early for that...

[b]21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;[/b]

An early example of abdominoplasty? Perhaps this is where Cher got the idea?

[b]22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.[/b]

So here we have the first clone? Genetically modified 'sex-wise'...

[b]23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.[/b]

Incest? Tricky point of ethics here...

[b]24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.[/b]

What father and mother would that be?

[b]25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.[/b]

Early naturists?

Notice from truefusion:

If not of yourself, then in BB code. If you run out of quote BB code, then use code BB code.

Edited August 23, 2010 by truefusion (see edit history)

[zanzibarjones 1]

Ok then let's go with this....
The Bible is not Chronologically ordered. Therefore there are things that happened during a certain time period, and are not brought up till later. Does this mean that the account was wrong or untrue? No, it means there was no reason to bring it up then.

You want to go at it word for word, then look at it logically. Yes in the beginning the world was void and dark, and God spirit was above the waters on the earth.
Have you ever considered that there was life before man, before he separated those waters? If you read the bible through instead of just picking at pieces of it, the book will never make any sense to you.

If you read it thoroughly, you would have found out that God cast satan out of heaven before man was created. And where did he cast him? To earth? How could he have done this if the earth wasn't formed? how about that there was existence on earth before man. Hence dinosaurs. It is said that Satan is considered the prince of the earth, because we WAS an angel and was cast out. Is it possible that satan, out of his anger for God, tried to created life on his own? Those would be some very odd looking creatures would they not? Dinosaurs would fit the bill I think. So here comes the ICE age, follow me here. The ice age did what? killed most life on the earth? What happened to all that ice? Where did it go? Perhaps it melted and created, follow me, the waters that were on the earth and covered the earth and the same water that God's spirit hovered over.

You say that we can argue a myth until we think it's true, and you'll show me science. Funny, I didn't realize you or anyone else was alive 4 billions years ago, and could tell me what was going on back then. Sure you can guess, but hey isn't that like a myth. A fabrication of what you think occurred, even though you weren't really there to observe it.

Did people live for 900 years? Sure why not? How do you know what happened, again you were not there. Sure you can see the limits of people on the earth today, but if you believe in evolution, you have to believe people have changed....evolved so to speak. So why couldn't people have lost their ability to live long periods of time. Aside from the fact that the calendar year is calculated differently today (gregorian) as it was back in the days of the bible (jewish calendar)

Sure I would say that the bible probably does have passages that are misunderstood, but I would have to say again, people back then probably describe things a lot different then they do today.

Genesis talks about giants. Do you think they truly meant giants, or people who are today diagnosed with gigantism, a tumor pressing on the pituitary gland? Think Goliath. They describe him the best they could.

Also, if you want to go with time frames, look at this. I believe that the book of genesis was written inspired by God through Moses. The bible accounts for the past 6000 years from a few decades after Christ was born. So we are talking somewhere between 5000-5500 BC.

So how would a man, who never left out of his surrounding countries/areas, know that the lands were separated by great vast bodies of water? How could he have known this? He knew the earth was round... how did he know that? That didn't become public knowledge till the 1800s.

You also have to remember, that you are treating this as if it were being told and recorded at the time of it's actual happening. It was not. It was told of inspiration from God through Moses. So when you point out things like:

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.What father and mother would that be?

Moses is telling the facts. Moses has a mother and father. And, just so you know, God lives outside of time. And when he made Adam, he knew that they would become parents, and there would be other parents. And he made marriage to go along with the inter-minglings that humans would have one another. Setting down a ground work of moral laws.

Science as we know it, has only been around since the ancient greeks (and I said as we know it). Modern science can NOT account for all knowledge since the beginning. There will never be a way to prove it all 100%. Therefore you can either believe in man or believe in God.

It's so funny how people want to pick apart Christianity. We are a peaceful bunch of people. The biggest problem people have with religion is that eventually they know they will have to own up for all the wrong doings that have done in life. And they are scared. Christianity does not say, go kill others, as a matter of fact is says help those who need it. Love one another and spread the word of this love. Yet people want to hate it. Odd.... what if you were told to spread the word of your parents love, would you hate them too after all that they did for you? Oh well...

[truefusion 3]

Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. They knew that over a millenium ago - Check Aquinas for example. He is quite clear about the matter.

 

Irrelevant; the same conclusion will come from me whether i take Genesis literal or not. But note also that even the early church fathers can be wrong.

 

No, you mean you would like them to be, but they certainly are not. When you insist that a myth is the truth then I insist that science says otherwise.

As mentioned, you can exclude the fact that science mentions that the universe is such and such years old and it still will not change anything. Hence it is irrelevant.

 

You obviously don't know anything about Hebrew. The fact that the word Yom is used repeatedly is highly significant. Hebrew scholars are quite clear about that so unless you want to show me your Hewbrew qualifications then I think I'll stick with those who actually know what the words mean....

For example:-

 

 

Good enough for me.

 

If you and the person you quote so chooses to avoid what is written on what occurred on the First Day and choose to avoid what is written on what occurred on the Fourth Day, then that is your own choices. But if you call that scholarly evaluation of the text, then you are only deluding yourselves. I prefer not to repeat myself (as it tends to make words less significant), but i would assume that you still would not see what is obvious. Here is what is obvious (and read carefully): The First Day introduces "day" and "night" but does not explicitly define a value for it. Then there is morning and evening. It is not until the Fourth Day that the sun and the moon enter and is declared as a sign for the people to mark for their days, seasons, et cetera. Tell me, how can there be morning and evening without the sun (and moon)? How can there even be 3 Days previous to the sun and moon and stars' existence? Do you know why the majority of the remaining parts of the Bible assume 24-hour days? (Note that not all instances of the word "day" do not reflect the creation account, as your example otherwise implies.) Because the sun is already in existence and the writer at that point of writing is assuming their own time frame not the beginning where God is creating things.

 

So you think it is possible to have the sun present but no light? How does that work then? A photonic shield? And you think you don't need the sun for night and day? What causes it then? Does God have a big torch which he keeps turning on and off? You keep saying things are not biblical as though that meant anything...the biblical account is wrong, so the fact that it is not biblical doesn't say anything about the validity... God does not do the impossible - another basic item of theology that seems to have passed you by. Or can God create a weight that he cannot lift? The only way around the paradox of omnipotence is to accept that God does not do illogical things. Again this has been known since the time of Aquinas and a thousand years later you still don't seem to have got it....

 

And to top it all you think the sun was created before the rest of the stars? What a wacky world you live in.

You seem to have reversed my words and formed a straw man. I did not say there cannot be light with the sun, i said there can be light without the sun. For that reason, your rhetorical questions need not a response from me, except perhaps the one concerning night and day. But for that question i have already provided a response multiple times already. Look up again if you want a response.

 

If you are going to try and argue against the Bible, in order to at least seem reasonable, you must accurately represent the very thing you are arguing against, or else you are merely building a straw man. Therefore, if anything you mention is not Biblically accurate, there is no point in me addressing any of your concerns, except perhaps to inform you of your own fallacy.

 

The paradoxical question about God creating something that He cannot lift is a known-to-be-fallacious question. The fallacy is contradicting premises yielding the same conclusion. For that reason, it is not God that is illogical but the question itself and perhaps the one that assumes that the question is at all satisfactory. Unfortunately, not many people know this and therefore assume that when they ask such a paradoxical question that they are stating something logical. I can only hope that you, after reading this, come to the realization of the error of your questioning.

 

The Bible does not mention whether or not the sun was created before the stars or the stars before the sun. The Bible having it in that order does not mean that it occurred in that order for that very Day. That is, if it happened in that day, mentioning it in any order will still allow for any facts to be mentioned for that very Day. Also, if you believe that the stars came before the sun, you should realize that you have no way of proving that. So if i am living in a whacky world for believing that the sun came before the stars, then you too are living in a whacky world for believing that the stars came before the sun.

 

Not only do you not understand the Hebrew, you don't understand basic English. You cannot have something prehistoric to the creation. How could any animals exist before the Genesis account. The fact that the Genesis account says ALL means ALL - since you insist it is literal. Look it up in a dictionary and you will find that it means all, without exception, each single one, every item.

Anything else is not literal and just something you are making up.

Show me the verse that says all animals to have ever existed, prehistoric and otherwise. You should be able to, right? Such confidence cannot come from falsehood, or can it?

 

Seriously, is it really that hard for the term "all" (though it is not mentioned in Genesis concering the creation account) to mean the animals that are relative to us? Or are words not subject to interpretation in the English language?

 

Complete and utter rubbish. How could prehistoric events occur before the creation of the sun, stars and planets? You are starting to gibber now. How could animals exist before there is a universe for them to exist in.

There are no biblical explanations, and inventing them is very naughty...

I have already explained myself. Was i not clear enough? Prehistoric events are just that, prehistoric, events that happened in the past. You cannot prove to me that something like the Big Bang happened absolutely, and to assume that something like the Big Bang happened absolutely will only cause confusion to your own self, of which is obviously not my doing. And as i have already mentioned, in order to formulate what i have written, you must go beyond Genesis 1 into the rest of the Bible.

 

This isn't a theory, it is a mad nonsensical ramble. You invent the story that the earth already existed before genesis (despite that fact that it is clearly created in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ".

But aside from being 'not biblical' your invention doesn't work, so you now have to invent some whole backstory about annihilating and rebuilding. None of this has nothing to do with the bible - you are just inventing things as you go along and saying it is literal. When it is apparent to the meanest intellect that it is neither literal not logical.

Genesis 1:1 is for assuring that God did indeed create the Earth and all the heavens. Assume that Genesis 1:1 was never written. Could you then derive from Genesis 1 that God created the Earth (and all the heavens)? No, you can't, at least not while remaining Biblically accurate. If you want more reasons, then why doesn't Genesis 1 mention these other heavens that Genesis 1:1 speaks of? The Hebrew for "heavens" is indeed plural, so why aren't they mentioned? Why does the Second Day only include our sky (Biblically known to be the first heaven)? Because Genesis 1:1 is merely a summarization of the entirety of God's creation. The remainder of Genesis is an outlined description of creation of our era.

 

The only way it is not logical i have already mentioned: you have to make assumptions that contradict, though the validity of these assumptions is questioned. Rebirth is a common concept of the Bible. It does not take a scholar to see this, and it in no way means that it can't be also applied to the creation account.

 

You are just stringing words together into random sentences with no comprehension of what the sentences mean. Since the earth survived previous existences? Pure science fiction. Nothing to do with any words in the actual account.

 

You cannot account for a 3 billion year spread of fossils in that manner anyway...unless you think that God had some really really long creative sessions. God would have to be constantly creating new species for about 3 billion years. His arm would get tired and I'm sure he'd get grumpy with that much loss of sleep...

The only explanation that i can Biblically derive for the fact that the Earth pre-existed the sun, moon and stars is the concept of Rebirth, continual creations.

 

If you provided an accurate description of God, then you might have had an argument. But until you have one, you have yet to show that God is incapable of constant and consistent work and that what i have said cannot be Biblically derived.

 

1. As for your reference to Genesis 2 - that simply destroys the case (as if it were not already destroyed).

 

2. So the trees and grasses existed as seeds up to this point...OK, but this contradicts Genesis 1. The earth is supposed to be covered in water....odd but let's go with it.

 

3. OK so now we get rain. After the trees and grasses and herbs...odd because this again contradicts Genesis 1...but let's progress...

 

4. Now I thought that he created man and woman on day 6 in Genesis 1 ?

 

5. OK..so this 'other' man is put in a garden. Presumably the previous men and women were not the 'chosen people' but this 'Adam' is?

 

6. Hmm...this is a problem - the geography is all wrong.

 

7. Hmm...remember this threat for later - it will prove to be a lie.

 

8. But he already created man and woman in Genesis 1 so presumably this is a 'chosen' woman?

 

9. So these would be different to the animals already created in Genesis 1? How long did it take Adam to name them all, I wonder, given that there are several million species...?

 

10. What father and mother would that be?

 

1. I do not recall referencing Genesis, chapter 2. If you are referring to the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 concern the same things, that i cannot help.

 

2. It doesn't contradict; it is obvious that it is referencing the Third Day.

 

3. No, it doesn't. Again, this is merely a more thorough description of the Third Day.

 

4. He did. The story has merely moved up to the Sixth Day.

 

5. There is no "other man." The Hebrew word for "man" is "Adam."

 

6. Not necessarily. The names seen on a map today do not necessarily resemble the names of the past. For example, Ephraim and Israel are the same land as referred in the Bible, except where otherwise stated. Only later on in the Bible is Israel referenced as Israel. This shows geographical history. It is also possible that natural events deformed the environment from what it used to be.

 

7. It is not a lie, nor would i call it a threat; they do indeed become prone to death, death becoming an inevitable conclusion of their lives.

 

8. It's the same woman, just a more thorough description of her creation.

 

9. This would be the Sixth Day. The order in which something is mentioned does not necessarily mean the order in which they were created. In the case of Genesis 1, one need only mention what occurred on the Days in order to mention such; the order being insignificant.

 

10. In the case of Adam and Eve, there would be no biological parents. But it is obvious that they are talking about the future.

[anwiii 17]

i am sorta curious why you think the order of the days would be insignificant. whether things happened in the order decribed or didn't happen in the order described. i see a significance either to the hisotry, the person who wrote it that way, or the reasons "why" if they were written out of order. i actually find some significance to it.day and night. it was argued two ways. 1 way it was argued was that there was no chronological order. to me, if part of the bible can't be taken literally, then what SHOULD be taken literally? the other way it was argued was there was no definition of what day or night was and day and night could have meant something else besides what we know today. if that is true, then maybe the sun and the stars aren't really the sun and the stars either. if "day" and "night" may have a different meaning, then why shouldn't the "sun" and "stars" and alot of the other stuff that isn't defined clearly in the bible for people to understand it? was the bible written for people NOT to understand it?to me, i think the old testimate is a joke and should have no basis of discussing a faith in religion. you say whether someone believes in the old testimate or not doesn't change anything. it may not change anything, but it sure is relevant to the discussion. i would LOVE to know who the christians are that believe in the old testimate compared to those who don't believe.and one last thought. does one have to have faith in the old testimate to even be considered a christian? if not, we are talking about 1/2 of a holy book that you don't have to have faith in? if so, how can you possibly have faith in something where you don't even know what "night" and "day" is?

Edited August 23, 2010 by anwiii (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

If you and the person you quote so chooses to avoid what is written on what occurred on the First Day and choose to avoid what is written on what occurred on the Fourth Day, then that is your own choices.

I didn't quote a single person. I cited the common view amongst Hebrew Scholars.

The word Yom can mean a 24 hour period, a 12 hour period, or an period of a longer time. It is nearly always used to mean 'day' - as in Yom Kippur (Day of atonement) or Yom Teruah (day of shouting). It is occasionally used in a more poetic way to mean an 'era', but when that is the case then there are hints from the context - just the same as in English. So when we say 'Concorde was fantastic in its day', it is clear that the word doesn't mean a 24 hour period from the context. In Genesis we see a distinct usage. It doesn't say 'on the first day', it says Day 1 (yom ehad). When Yom is used this way is means 24 hour period.

Click here for link to supporting material

 

Exactly the same applies to Hebrew. The use in Genesis is clear and fits with most use in the rest of the bible - it means 'Day' literally. Where it is used in the bible to mean 'period' then it is obvious from the context.

But if you call that scholarly evaluation of the text, then you are only deluding yourselves.

Why, because you say so? Hardly evidence, since you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I prefer not to repeat myself (as it tends to make words less significant), but i would assume that you still would not see what is obvious. Here is what is obvious (and read carefully): The First Day introduces "day" and "night" but does not explicitly define a value for it.

Which, as previously explained is wrong. It is a day. Also the concept of day (or night) is meaningless without the sun, since it is then an entirely arbitrary figure.

Then there is morning and evening. It is not until the Fourth Day that the sun and the moon enter and is declared as a sign for the people to mark for their days, seasons, et cetera.

Yep that is what it says. So 4 days into creation we have the sun and moon. Fine, agreed.

Tell me, how can there be morning and evening without the sun (and moon)? How can there even be 3 Days previous to the sun and moon and stars' existence?

The answer is easy - it IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. See...problem solved.

Do you know why the majority of the remaining parts of the Bible assume 24-hour days? (Note that not all instances of the word "day" do not reflect the creation account, as your example otherwise implies.) Because the sun is already in existence and the writer at that point of writing is assuming their own time frame not the beginning where God is creating things.

It makes no difference at all. Even if we take your assumption to be true (ie that the first 4 'days' mean some period of time greater than a day then the story still doesn't work, as I have already shown). The fact is, though, that the storyteller is born when there is a sun and his choice of the word Yom is made in that context for the whole account, not just from day 4. IT MEANS DAY!

You seem to have reversed my words and formed a straw man. I did not say there cannot be light with the sun, i said there can be light without the sun. For that reason, your rhetorical questions need not a response from me, except perhaps the one concerning night and day. But for that question i have already provided a response multiple times already. Look up again if you want a response.

Of course there can be light without the sun. Light is just photons within the visible spectrum - we can get it from stars and other phenomena. That isn't really the point. Plants do not grow without much more than starlight can provide. When God creates the plants there is no sun - hence they die. Since you also say that this period is more than a day, that just means they all die, rather than just some or most. Pretending that there was already light is 'not biblical' since on day 4 we read that the sun is created "to give light on the earth.". It follows that before this the earth did not have light on it.

If you are going to try and argue against the Bible, in order to at least seem reasonable, you must accurately represent the very thing you are arguing against, or else you are merely building a straw man. Therefore, if anything you mention is not Biblically accurate, there is no point in me addressing any of your concerns, except perhaps to inform you of your own fallacy.

There are no inaccuracies in what I have quoted.

The paradoxical question about God creating something that He cannot lift is a known-to-be-fallacious question. The fallacy is contradicting premises yielding the same conclusion.

There is no fallacy in the question. The fallacy is in the concept of omnipotence.

For that reason, it is not God that is illogical but the question itself and perhaps the one that assumes that the question is at all satisfactory. Unfortunately, not many people know this and therefore assume that when they ask such a paradoxical question that they are stating something logical. I can only hope that you, after reading this, come to the realization of the error of your questioning.

Fortunately many people DO know the difference between a logical fallacy of composition, and a fallacy of premise, so they know that the fallacy is with the notion of omnipotence, not the question which merely highlights the paradox involved.

Show me the verse that says all animals to have ever existed, prehistoric and otherwise. You should be able to, right? Such confidence cannot come from falsehood, or can it?

Another fallacy. The bible does not mention lots of things. It doesn't say that any specific animals were created, so using your 'logic' no specific animals were created....other than some generic 'wild animals'. It doesn't mention that an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere was created, but we sort of assume it was, otherwise the story makes even less sense. There is no reason to believe that the word 'all' means anything other than 'all' the animals, and your interpretation in 'not biblical'.

Seriously, is it really that hard for the term "all" (though it is not mentioned in Genesis concering the creation account) to mean the animals that are relative to us? Or are words not subject to interpretation in the English language?

All means 'every-one', 'every example'. Why do you insist that it doesn't? Get a dictionary.

I have already explained myself. Was i not clear enough? Prehistoric events are just that, prehistoric, events that happened in the past. You cannot prove to me that something like the Big Bang happened absolutely, and to assume that something like the Big Bang happened absolutely will only cause confusion to your own self, of which is obviously not my doing. And as i have already mentioned, in order to formulate what i have written, you must go beyond Genesis 1 into the rest of the Bible.

Again you are fundamentally wrong. Prehistory is that period before written history (hence the name...geddit?).

You cannot prove to me that you had any great-great-grandparents. Is it therefore logical to assume you didn't? This is what we call the 'appeal to ignorance' fallacy.

 

I think Genesis 2 can wait - you haven't understood Genesis 1 yet.

[truefusion 3]

I didn't quote a single person. I cited the common view amongst Hebrew Scholars.

The word Yom can mean a 24 hour period, a 12 hour period, or an period of a longer time. It is nearly always used to mean 'day' - as in Yom Kippur (Day of atonement) or Yom Teruah (day of shouting). It is occasionally used in a more poetic way to mean an 'era', but when that is the case then there are hints from the context - just the same as in English. So when we say 'Concorde was fantastic in its day', it is clear that the word doesn't mean a 24 hour period from the context. In Genesis we see a distinct usage. It doesn't say 'on the first day', it says Day 1 (yom ehad). When Yom is used this way is means 24 hour period.

Click here for link to supporting material

 

Exactly the same applies to Hebrew. The use in Genesis is clear and fits with most use in the rest of the bible - it means 'Day' literally. Where it is used in the bible to mean 'period' then it is obvious from the context.

Excellent, you finally decided to agree with what i said. But you also did more than that, you provided a link to a PDF that supports what i have been arguing this whole time.

 

Why, because you say so? Hardly evidence, since you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Your statement above this one begs to differ.

 

Which, as previously explained is wrong. It is a day. Also the concept of day (or night) is meaningless without the sun, since it is then an entirely arbitrary figure.

I have no idea how to take this; whether you are disagreeing with my claim or agreeing with it or both, i have no idea; all three are possible. I'll split it up in two, therefore.

 

Your starting statement in the post i am responding to says it is more than a day, an indefinite period of time.

 

Yes, lacking the sun would indeed make "day" and "night" undefined in length.

 

The answer is easy - it IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. See...problem solved.

As mentioned, whether taken literally or not, the same conclusion would be derived. Therefore my choice in taking it literally will not change.

 

It makes no difference at all. Even if we take your assumption to be true (ie that the first 4 'days' mean some period of time greater than a day then the story still doesn't work, as I have already shown). The fact is, though, that the storyteller is born when there is a sun and his choice of the word Yom is made in that context for the whole account, not just from day 4. IT MEANS DAY!

I can only hope that you are taking this seriously. First you link to a PDF that shows that these days are unique to the entire Bible and that they are indefinite to their length of time, and now you are claiming that these are regular 24-hour days. If you wish to change stories for every single statement you make, please warn me ahead of time. Nevertheless, my argument never said that we should start assuming that the (Fourth,) Fifth and Sixth Days are to be taken as 24-hour days.

 

Of course there can be light without the sun. Light is just photons within the visible spectrum - we can get it from stars and other phenomena. That isn't really the point. Plants do not grow without much more than starlight can provide. When God creates the plants there is no sun - hence they die. Since you also say that this period is more than a day, that just means they all die, rather than just some or most. Pretending that there was already light is 'not biblical' since on day 4 we read that the sun is created "to give light on the earth.". It follows that before this the earth did not have light on it.

If the First Day in the Bible was not mentioned, then you would have an argument. But, thankfully, since it is mentioned i need not do any pretending in order for my statement to be Biblically accurate. The problem with your argument is that you are trying to make the sun the only source of light, but that is not Biblically accurate. Read the First Day as many times as you need to in order to see that light was already in existence before the Third and Fourth Day.

 

But to mention something about plants not being able to grow without sun light: Do plants receive sun light when they are underground?

 

There is no fallacy in the question. The fallacy is in the concept of omnipotence.

Fortunately many people DO know the difference between a logical fallacy of composition, and a fallacy of premise, so they know that the fallacy is with the notion of omnipotence, not the question which merely highlights the paradox involved.

Actually, the fact that the question assumes an omnipotence that isn't Biblical is what leads the question to being fallacious, causing it to form contrary premises that yield the same conclusion. You are right, it is fortunate that there are those out there that can point out that the question commits the fallacy of contrary premises.

 

Another fallacy. The bible does not mention lots of things. It doesn't say that any specific animals were created, so using your 'logic' no specific animals were created....other than some generic 'wild animals'. It doesn't mention that an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere was created, but we sort of assume it was, otherwise the story makes even less sense. There is no reason to believe that the word 'all' means anything other than 'all' the animals, and your interpretation in 'not biblical'.

 

All means 'every-one', 'every example'. Why do you insist that it doesn't? Get a dictionary.

The Bible does mention what kind of animals were created, starting with fish and whales, and birds of the sky and ground, then insects, reptiles and mammals, et cetera. Your argument is that these include every single creature to have ever existed. My argument is that there is no way to Biblically derive that. My argument asserts that it is more Biblical to assume that it is the creatures of our time due to the pattern of the Bible that it only mentions what concerns us. What other reason do you have that explains why other things that are in existence are not mentioned?

[Bikerman 2]

Excellent, you finally decided to agree with what i said. But you also did more than that, you provided a link to a PDF that supports what i have been arguing this whole time.

 

You obviously have a problem reading. Let me spell it out for you:

The word YOM means 24 hour day (or sometimes 12 hours - referring to the day, not night) EXCEPT in some circumstances where it is used metaphorically - just in the same way that we use the word 'day' metaphorically in phrases such as 'The Day of The Jackal'. When used like that it is obvious from the textual context. Genesis is NOT using it like that. Even it you think it was then the clincher is that when the word (Yom) is used, as in Genesis 1, with a number, it ALWAYS means day as in 24 hour period.

 

geddit?

Your starting statement in the post i am responding to says it is more than a day, an indefinite period of time.

But you didn't read the rest did you? Typical fundie .. only see what they want to see. Read the rest - or if you can't be bothered I've explained it again above.

Yes, lacking the sun would indeed make "day" and "night" undefined in length.

But since the text is kind enough to tell us, then we can work with this 24 hour period.

As mentioned, whether taken literally or not, the same conclusion would be derived. Therefore my choice in taking it literally will not change.

I agree - literal or not the text does not work scientifically therefore it is a parable/metaphor/story.

I can only hope that you are taking this seriously. First you link to a PDF that shows that these days are unique to the entire Bible and that they are indefinite to their length of time, and now you are claiming that these are regular 24-hour days. If you wish to change stories for every single statement you make, please warn me ahead of time. Nevertheless, my argument never said that we should start assuming that the (Fourth,) Fifth and Sixth Days are to be taken as 24-hour days.

Again you need to read what is actually written and not stop at a comma or full stop just because it suits you up to that point. Read the whole thing. These uses of YOM are not unique, they are very common - found in many parts of the bible. Everytime the word is used, except for in obvious metaphoric use in parables, IT MEANS 24 hour day.

If the First Day in the Bible was not mentioned, then you would have an argument. But, thankfully, since it is mentioned i need not do any pretending in order for my statement to be Biblically accurate. The problem with your argument is that you are trying to make the sun the only source of light, but that is not Biblically accurate. Read the First Day as many times as you need to in order to see that light was already in existence before the Third and Fourth Day.

I didn't say the sun was the only source of light - I said exactly the opposite. You really do have a problem reading don't you? I can't use much simpler words - I'm already simplifying as much as I can.

Yes, let there be light indicates the creation of the universe - the stars would be part of that. Therefore we have starlight. The point is that it would not be of much use.

But to mention something about plants not being able to grow without sun light: Do plants receive sun light when they are underground?

It depends how deep. The thing you probably don't know is that visibility is not the issue. At different frequencies photons also mean heat. Without the sun this planet would have a temperature somewhere around -270 degrees centigrade. Nothing lives in that.

Actually, the fact that the question assumes an omnipotence that isn't Biblical is what leads the question to being fallacious, causing it to form contrary premises that yield the same conclusion. You are right, it is fortunate that there are those out there that can point out that the question commits the fallacy of contrary premises.

Again you have a problem with plain english. The question is perfectly formed and valid. The fallacy results from the fact that omnipotence is disallowed since it is inherently paradoxical. Now, you seem to be saying that the bible means some different form of 'omnipotence' so would you care to tell us what that actually is? Like when it appears in Revelation 19:6?

The Bible does mention what kind of animals were created, starting with fish and whales, and birds of the sky and ground, then insects, reptiles and mammals, et cetera. Your argument is that these include every single creature to have ever existed. My argument is that there is no way to Biblically derive that. My argument asserts that it is more Biblical to assume that it is the creatures of our time due to the pattern of the Bible that it only mentions what concerns us. What other reason do you have that explains why other things that are in existence are not mentioned?

 

You don't have to 'derive' anything. You are assuming that a word means something different. You are happy to play fast and loose with the text when it suits you. The word 'all' means 'all' - it doesn't mean 'except x,y,z' - that is your invention. It is also silly to presume it meant NOW. When is NOW? 2000BCE? 10000BCE? 1CE? 2010?

 

The meaning of 'all' is emphasised repeatedly in the Genesis account:

So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

You obviously have a problem reading. Let me spell it out for you:

The word YOM means 24 hour day (or sometimes 12 hours - referring to the day, not night) EXCEPT in some circumstances where it is used metaphorically - just in the same way that we use the word 'day' metaphorically in phrases such as 'The Day of The Jackal'. When used like that it is obvious from the textual context. Genesis is NOT using it like that. Even it you think it was then the clincher is that when the word (Yom) is used, as in Genesis 1, with a number, it ALWAYS means day as in 24 hour period.

 

geddit?

 

But you didn't read the rest did you? Typical fundie .. only see what they want to see. Read the rest - or if you can't be bothered I've explained it again above.

 

But since the text is kind enough to tell us, then we can work with this 24 hour period.

 

Again you need to read what is actually written and not stop at a comma or full stop just because it suits you up to that point. Read the whole thing. These uses of YOM are not unique, they are very common - found in many parts of the bible. Everytime the word is used, except for in obvious metaphoric use in parables, IT MEANS 24 hour day.

The godandscience.org website was a website i would frequently visit in the past. I know for a fact that the author of that website is an old-earth creationist, and it is no surprise that the PDF you reference from that site yields a conclusion of old-earth creationism. If you require it, here is a summary of the PDF (in my own words):

 

The author of the article in PDF format introduces two arguments from two differing sources that contradict the other after briefly mentioning about John MacArthur’s Study Bible. The first argument is from Gleason L. Archer, who claims that the six days of creation are to be considered as 24-hour days. The second argument, from Norman L. Geisler, claims that the Hebrew allows for any length of time for these "days." In the quote, Norman L. Geisler references Hosea, chapter 6, to try and prove his point. From there the author of the article in PDF format heads into the Hebrew himself to try and form a formal conclusion on the matter. The author declares that the verses in Genesis 1 are unique in comparison to the rest of the Bible due to the fact that all the instances of the Hebrew word "Yom" in Genesis 1 lack the prefixes founded in the other instances of the Hebrew word "Yom" from the rest of the Bible. From his research, he confirms that Norman L. Geisler, the one who asserted that the Hebrew in Genesis 1 does not define a length of time for the word "Yom," is the proper way to interpret Genesis 1. He goes on to say that the only thing that Gleason L. Archer said that was true was that none of these Days should be prefixed with the article "the" when translating it to English. The remainder of the PDF is mostly a repeat of what has already been mentioned but with the conslusion highlighted in bold text.

 

Anyone can verify this information. No one has messed around with the link and therefore can download the article themselves. Anyone can also verify the information in the article, on whether or not Genesis 1 does show unique characteristics from the rest of the Bible, for there are many sources where one can obtain the Hebrew of Genesis 1 and the remainder of the Bible. As for me, i have an interlinear Bible, ISBN-10: 1-56563-977-4, which i make use of when needed. If you did not mean or intend to use that PDF as part of your argument (since it clearly contradicts your argument), i would say it is too late for you to appear consistent any more.

 

I agree - literal or not the text does not work scientifically therefore it is a parable/metaphor/story.

Scientifically is not the issue here, especially when one can pick and choose scientific theories of the creation (or beginning) of space and time.

 

I didn't say the sun was the only source of light - I said exactly the opposite. You really do have a problem reading don't you? I can't use much simpler words - I'm already simplifying as much as I can.

 

Yes, let there be light indicates the creation of the universe - the stars would be part of that. Therefore we have starlight. The point is that it would not be of much use.

Starlight on the First Day and onward before the Fourth Day cannot be Biblically possible. The stars weren't explicitly introduced until the Fourth Day. For that reason, if you claim that the plants require the sun for light, then i have no other choice but to assume that your argument implies that if no sun, then no light, period. The only thing we can assume about the First Day concerning light is the obvious properties of light (which would include heat). We can try to assume that this light is being emitted from God (though obviously by God), but there is no information in the Bible that we can derive what the definitive source of this light is. Since the other sources of light surrounding the Earth did not exist until the Fourth Day, it is, therefore, not safe to assume that the First Day implies the beginning of the Big Bang if one were to do so.

 

Again you have a problem with plain english. The question is perfectly formed and valid. The fallacy results from the fact that omnipotence is disallowed since it is inherently paradoxical. Now, you seem to be saying that the bible means some different form of 'omnipotence' so would you care to tell us what that actually is? Like when it appears in Revelation 19:6?

http://www.virtualsalt.com/think/matfall3.htm (About one-third of the page in you will find "contradictory premises.")

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html (All the way at the bottom you will find "contradictory premises.")

 

The word "omnipotence" is not found anywhere in the Bible. You are right when you reference Revelation 19:6, as the closest thing to "omnipotence" in the Bible is "Almighty." Almighty means greater than everything in everything, hence why God is also called the "Most High," because He is above everything. Almighty just adds to "Most High" by going beyond position and into power. The paradoxical question commits the fallacy of contrary premises because the first premise assumes the Biblical almighty for omnipotence and the second premise assumes a definition for omnipotence that contradicts the Biblical almighty. One word bearing two contradicting definitions within the same statement is an obvious fallacy and is simply deceiving.

 

You don't have to 'derive' anything. You are assuming that a word means something different. You are happy to play fast and loose with the text when it suits you. The word 'all' means 'all' - it doesn't mean 'except x,y,z' - that is your invention. It is also silly to presume it meant NOW. When is NOW? 2000BCE? 10000BCE? 1CE? 2010?

 

The meaning of 'all' is emphasised repeatedly in the Genesis account:

And you are forgetting that context is what helps define a word. If you are not willing to provide a reason from the Bible and not a dictionary (which is irrelevant as a source when arguing about a word where context defines it) on why it can only mean every single creature to have ever existed, then just say so. If i were to go to the beach and order someone to catch all the fish of the sea, does that mean even prehistoric fish? Or does it mean those that relate to our own time? Remember, Adam, the first human, existed around this time; that is "now."

[Bikerman 2]

The godandscience.org website was a website i would frequently visit in the past. I know for a fact that the author of that website is an old-earth creationist, and it is no surprise that the PDF you reference from that site yields a conclusion of old-earth creationism. If you require it, here is a summary of the PDF (in my own words):

 

Quite wrong. The conclusion I draw is the same as the YECs. YECs are crazy people but they occasionally sumble on a good argument by accident. In this case the argument is:

When numbers are used in a series (1, 2, 3 … ) in connection with the word day (yom) in the Old Testament, it always refers to twenty-four-hour-days. The absence of any exception to this in the Old Testament is evidence of the fact that Genesis 1 is referring to twenty-four-hour-days.

There is nothing inconsistent in providing the only literature I think you will read. It is my experience when dealing with creationists that they don't read science - any science. Therefore I try to provide links to creationist literature when possible. It is rarely possible because YECs don't do science, but this is linguistics and textual analysis so they might be able to manage that.

 

The reason for that article was that it seemed better balanced than most - they take one side or the other on dogmatic grounds. I would have thought that it was obvious that the strongest argument is that by the YECs - the one quoted above. OECs and others have no substantive answer to it and simply cop-out by saying 'just because it is always used like that in the OT, doesn't mean it is this time'. That is no sort of argument - even for a creationist.

 

Then, of course, the thing is actually resolved by the passage itself. Recall

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So not only is the word Yom used, it is actually defined for us in the text - the light of a 24 hour period - which you will recall I gave as one of the meanings. It is not possible to maintain that Yom means anything other that what it means in normal Hebrew - a literal day.

If you are willing to read non creationist links then the following makes the case quite clear and quite conclusive:

http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/how-long-were-days-genesis-1

 

Scientifically is not the issue here, especially when one can pick and choose scientific theories of the creation (or beginning) of space and time.

I know you would like science not to be the issue, but it is. Science works, is subject to test, and is the most perfect system for gathering knowledge about the universe that we have yet invented. In any conflict between science and religion about facts then religion is wrong, no question about it. This has been demonstrated time and again over the last 500 years.

Starlight on the First Day and onward before the Fourth Day cannot be Biblically possible. The stars weren't explicitly introduced until the Fourth Day. For that reason, if you claim that the plants require the sun for light, then i have no other choice but to assume that your argument implies that if no sun, then no light, period. The only thing we can assume about the First Day concerning light is the obvious properties of light (which would include heat). We can try to assume that this light is being emitted from God (though obviously by God), but there is no information in the Bible that we can derive what the definitive source of this light is. Since the other sources of light surrounding the Earth did not exist until the Fourth Day, it is, therefore, not safe to assume that the First Day implies the beginning of the Big Bang if one were to do so.

So you want to rule out stars? But it doesn't say which stars on day 4. Using your own argument it is logical to assume that it would have only meant the stars known about at that time (which were actually planets in a few cases). Therefore there is no contradiction in reading 'let there be light' to refer to the rest of the billions of stars that were not known about.

 

Why you think that light implies heat I am not sure. Heat is not 'an obvious property' of light. Heat refers to very specific frequencies of electromagnetism that are NOT visible, so this argument is a non-starter.

Conclusion - either God created most of the stars in the first day, or he created some unspecified light. Either way the earth would have been a frigid ice covered globe with a temperature two hundred degrees below zero...

The word "omnipotence" is not found anywhere in the Bible. You are right when you reference Revelation 19:6, as the closest thing to "omnipotence" in the Bible is "Almighty." Almighty means greater than everything in everything, hence why God is also called the "Most High," because He is above everything. Almighty just adds to "Most High" by going beyond position and into power. The paradoxical question commits the fallacy of contrary premises because the first premise assumes the Biblical almighty for omnipotence and the second premise assumes a definition for omnipotence that contradicts the Biblical almighty. One word bearing two contradicting definitions within the same statement is an obvious fallacy and is simply deceiving.

Blame the Jesuits, not me. All I gave you was standard (and current) Roman Catholic doctrine on the matter.

And you are forgetting that context is what helps define a word. If you are not willing to provide a reason from the Bible and not a dictionary (which is irrelevant as a source when arguing about a word where context defines it) on why it can only mean every single creature to have ever existed, then just say so. If i were to go to the beach and order someone to catch all the fish of the sea, does that mean even prehistoric fish? Or does it mean those that relate to our own time? Remember, Adam, the first human, existed around this time; that is "now."

 

There cannot be any prehistoric animals prior to creation - it is so obvious that a child could see it.

a) Any animals that existed before Genesis 1 would have been eternally frozen blocks.

b ) Any animals that existed before Genesis 1 would, by definition, be known about by God because he must have created them. The bible is the inspired word of God and it is not conceivable that Moses (or whoever really wrote Genesis) could have got something so badly wrong.

 

The animals concerned cannot have existed AFTER creation - who would create them?

Edited August 29, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Quite wrong. The conclusion I draw is the same as the YECs. YECs are crazy people but they occasionally sumble on a good argument by accident. In this case the argument is:

 

There is nothing inconsistent in providing the only literature I think you will read. It is my experience when dealing with creationists that they don't read science - any science. Therefore I try to provide links to creationist literature when possible. It is rarely possible because YECs don't do science, but this is linguistics and textual analysis so they might be able to manage that.

 

The reason for that article was that it seemed better balanced than most - they take one side or the other on dogmatic grounds. I would have thought that it was obvious that the strongest argument is that by the YECs - the one quoted above. OECs and others have no substantive answer to it and simply cop-out by saying 'just because it is always used like that in the OT, doesn't mean it is this time'. That is no sort of argument - even for a creationist.

 

Then, of course, the thing is actually resolved by the passage itself. Recall

So not only is the word Yom used, it is actually defined for us in the text - the light of a 24 hour period - which you will recall I gave as one of the meanings. It is not possible to maintain that Yom means anything other that what it means in normal Hebrew - a literal day.

If you are willing to read non creationist links then the following makes the case quite clear and quite conclusive:

http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/how-long-were-days-genesis-1

Yes, i realize your argument runs along the lines of young-earth creationism.

 

Science is often left out because science is not worth mentioning except when it is relevant. What part of science is relevant here? What part of science is contradicted here? Is it not the parts of science that are still under scrutiny? Therefore science need not be mentioned.

 

The PDF you referenced provided more than just "the Hebrew allows for undefinite lengths of time." The very same PDF said the pattern found in Genesis 1 is not found anywhere else in the Bible. Therefore the YEC argument you provided has no bearing since it depends on there being a similar pattern found elsewhere in the Bible. The fact is that there is no other numbering pattern found in the rest of the Bible, so to argue "the lack thereof" is illogical.

 

There cannot be evening and morning without day and night. Therefore day and night is introduced in the First Day. Then there is even and morning. Though the Bible was written by man, the presumed position of Genesis 1 is the perspective of God at the time of creation (this is made obvious by the phrase, "And God said ..."). For this reason it is safe to assume that "day," "night," "evening," and "morning" are words whose definition differs from what is practically used by humans until otherwise Biblically stated.

 

If you recall, 24 hours, let alone an hour, cannot be defined without the sun being in its orbital position and the Earth's rotation and revolution. But the sun is not introduced till the Fourth Day. Therefore it cannot be said that these "days" represent any form of time that is wholly dependent on the sun in combination to the Earth's rotation and revolution.

 

As for the CAI article you reference, their entire argument can be summarized to, "Why didn't God choose these methods?"—as if to say they are the only methods. My response to the article, therefore, should be obvious.

 

I know you would like science not to be the issue, but it is. Science works, is subject to test, and is the most perfect system for gathering knowledge about the universe that we have yet invented. In any conflict between science and religion about facts then religion is wrong, no question about it. This has been demonstrated time and again over the last 500 years.

To be subject to test is to be subject to correction. For that reason it cannot be said that if religion conflicts with science that religion is therefore false, for either would be on equal terms with each other concerning their validity.

 

So you want to rule out stars? But it doesn't say which stars on day 4. Using your own argument it is logical to assume that it would have only meant the stars known about at that time (which were actually planets in a few cases). Therefore there is no contradiction in reading 'let there be light' to refer to the rest of the billions of stars that were not known about.

Well said.

 

Why you think that light implies heat I am not sure. Heat is not 'an obvious property' of light. Heat refers to very specific frequencies of electromagnetism that are NOT visible, so this argument is a non-starter.

Conclusion - either God created most of the stars in the first day, or he created some unspecified light. Either way the earth would have been a frigid ice covered globe with a temperature two hundred degrees below zero...

 

There cannot be any prehistoric animals prior to creation - it is so obvious that a child could see it.

a) Any animals that existed before Genesis 1 would have been eternally frozen blocks.

b ) Any animals that existed before Genesis 1 would, by definition, be known about by God because he must have created them. The bible is the inspired word of God and it is not conceivable that Moses (or whoever really wrote Genesis) could have got something so badly wrong.

The extreme scientific definition of light is not what is assumed in Scripture. Scripture assumes the practical definition of light, which has always been known to be visible and give off some form of heat (examples being when some angels were introduced; Moses's face after spending some time in the presence of God; et cetera).

 

The Earth being frozen and therefore no life could continue on Earth is something i introduced a while back, in relation to prehistoric creatures and their end. Indeed, prehistoric creatures would eventually die out, and that is the whole point, as it would explain a lot of things on why these creatures are found to be dead today. Yes, it would perfectly follow from my assertion that the creatures created in the 5th and 6th Days are those that exist today, since the others have died out. And so having prehistoric creatures dead at this point does not contradict Scripture.

 

I should mention that the fact that Adam takes the time to name all the animals (except those in the sea) should imply that the creatures created that are mentioned in Genesis 1 are merely those that exist today.

 

The animals concerned cannot have existed AFTER creation - who would create them?

You may want to rephrase this. The word "creation" implies no pre-existence. Therefore to say "AFTER creation" is not illogical and is virtually stating the definition of "creation."

[Bikerman 2]

Yes, i realize your argument runs along the lines of young-earth creationism.

 

Science is often left out because science is not worth mentioning except when it is relevant. What part of science is relevant here? What part of science is contradicted here? Is it not the parts of science that are still under scrutiny? Therefore science need not be mentioned.

No, the science for these parts is solid. It is mentioned because it is correct. It has been scrutinised many times and passes the test. It is also logically self-consistent unlike the Genesis account.

 

The PDF you referenced provided more than just "the Hebrew allows for undefinite lengths of time." The very same PDF said the pattern found in Genesis 1 is not found anywhere else in the Bible. Therefore the YEC argument you provided has no bearing since it depends on there being a similar pattern found elsewhere in the Bible. The fact is that there is no other numbering pattern found in the rest of the Bible, so to argue "the lack thereof" is illogical.

You are supposed to be able to filter. Are you asserting that the YEC was correct to say there is no other mention of Yom with numbers in the OT? Because if you are then you are wrong, and if you are then it means you haven't read it. YOM occurs over two hundred times elsewhere in the Old Testament with ordinals, i.e., first, second, third, etc. In ALL of these cases the reference is to a normal day.

 

It is acctually all irrelevant in any case and I only mention it to give you some indication how much of the bible you don't know. As I said previously, the passage itself clearly defines the word by referring to parts of the day - 24 hour day. It is indisputable, settled beyond doubt by the genesis account itself.

There cannot be evening and morning without day and night. Therefore day and night is introduced in the First Day. Then there is even and morning. Though the Bible was written by man, the presumed position of Genesis 1 is the perspective of God at the time of creation (this is made obvious by the phrase, "And God said ..."). For this reason it is safe to assume that "day," "night," "evening," and "morning" are words whose definition differs from what is practically used by humans until otherwise Biblically stated.

 

No, silly conclusion from a false chain of logic. Day and night (as periods of dark and light) cannot exist without the sun. The words can.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Now which parts of that do you not understand. God separates light from darkness, calls it day and night, even uses the words evening and morning. So the day is 24 hours, there is no sun, and the whole thing has just collapsed into the pile of allegorical nonsense that it always was. Which is, of course, the point. The whole account is illogical, wrong in most important details, and in many places actually self-contradictory. What do you expect from an ancient hebrew writer? Accuracy? It is a creation myth, not history.

If you recall, 24 hours, let alone an hour, cannot be defined without the sun being in its orbital position and the Earth's rotation and revolution. But the sun is not introduced till the Fourth Day. Therefore it cannot be said that these "days" represent any form of time that is wholly dependent on the sun in combination to the Earth's rotation and revolution.

You get half-way there and then can't face the ovbvious concluson - GENESIS IS WRONG.

To be subject to test is to be subject to correction. For that reason it cannot be said that if religion conflicts with science that religion is therefore false, for either would be on equal terms with each other concerning their validity.

They are not and never have been on equal terms. Science trumps religion everytime. You cannot name one single time when religious has proven correct over a scientific theory - it has never happened and it never will. The notion that there is some parity between the two is wishful thinking. All science is subject to test - including the theories of evolution, stellar formation, dating of the earth, the appearance and order of species. All of it - tested. Religion is not testable because it is a matter of faith. You can't test the bible account because there is no evidence for it. It isn't even logically coherent as you have just seen.

Once again QED Case proven.

The extreme scientific definition of light is not what is assumed in Scripture. Scripture assumes the practical definition of light, which has always been known to be visible and give off some form of heat (examples being when some angels were introduced; Moses's face after spending some time in the presence of God; et cetera).

I'm afraid you are just gibbering now. You don't understand the basic science and you certainly don't understand photonic frequencies. Neither did the bible authors which is why they get in such a pickle. Light and heat are two different things caused by the same particles at different frequencies. Ever seen a glow-worm? It is hot? No. Light in the visible spectrum doesn't tranport heat - that is infra-red which you cannot see. So I'm afraid once again the case is lost for you and yet again we have evidence that Genesis is wrong.

The Earth being frozen and therefore no life could continue on Earth is something i introduced a while back, in relation to prehistoric creatures and their end. Indeed, prehistoric creatures would eventually die out, and that is the whole point, as it would explain a lot of things on why these creatures are found to be dead today. Yes, it would perfectly follow from my assertion that the creatures created in the 5th and 6th Days are those that exist today, since the others have died out. And so having prehistoric creatures dead at this point does not contradict Scripture.

At -270C they would not die out, they would never have been born. Until the sun is created there can be no life on earth. It isn't a case of continuing, it could never start. Since you have absolutely no evidence that there was a sun before the 4th day then you have absolutely no evidence that there was any life on earth before that time.

I should mention that the fact that Adam takes the time to name all the animals (except those in the sea) should imply that the creatures created that are mentioned in Genesis 1 are merely those that exist today.

Repeating a lie does not make it true. You are simply changing the bible account to try and wriggle out of a hole - dishonest of course, because you claim that when others do this they are being 'un-biblical'. The word 'all' means 'all' and your attempt to redefine it will, like the rest of this, simply fail.

You may want to rephrase this. The word "creation" implies no pre-existence. Therefore to say "AFTER creation" is not illogical and is virtually stating the definition of "creation."

 

But again you are just redefining what the Genesis account actually says.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now you say that this is well before the rest of the Genesis account, but it cannot be so because the heavens are created in the Genesis account on day 4.

 

It doesn't actually matter anyway because we know that the earth was formed, not created, and this happened about 4.55 billion years ago - after the sun had sparked into life. So once again the attempt to creatively interpret the bible to suit the known facts is simply doomed before it starts.

 

As I have told you many times - Genesis is a parable, a creation myth, no more true than the Inca or the Indian or the Mayan creation myths. To take it literally was considered stupid in the 5th Century. Today stupid does not seem an adequately strong term.

Heed the words of Augustine in 408CE

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

The sound you hear is that very same laughter..... Edited August 30, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

No, the science for these parts is solid. It is mentioned because it is correct. It has been scrutinised many times and passes the test. It is also logically self-consistent unlike the Genesis account.

To be clear, do you mean to limit these theories to the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution? Or do you have in mind other scientific theories?

 

Nevertheless, whether you want to admit it or not, a scientific theory is not absolute. Remember when you said this too? Doesn't matter how many times they "pass the test;" a scientific theory is a scientific theory; they are a formulation of concepts and interpretations, whose premises are often taken as fact when these premises may have no proof for themselves. I can derive my own scientific theory from Genesis 1?in fact, i may have already done so in this topic.

 

You are supposed to be able to filter. Are you asserting that the YEC was correct to say there is no other mention of Yom with numbers in the OT? Because if you are then you are wrong, and if you are then it means you haven't read it. YOM occurs over two hundred times elsewhere in the Old Testament with ordinals, i.e., first, second, third, etc. In ALL of these cases the reference is to a normal day.

I would indeed be wrong if i really did assert that.

 

While it may be the case that YOM can be found elsewhere in the Bible with a number before it, that doesn't mean you'll find it used in the same way it is used in Genesis 1. If you haven't noticed, these other instances are individual instances that do not belong to any noticeable group. The ones in Genesis 1, it is obvious that they form a pattern and therefore form a group.

 

It is acctually all irrelevant in any case and I only mention it to give you some indication how much of the bible you don't know. As I said previously, the passage itself clearly defines the word by referring to parts of the day - 24 hour day. It is indisputable, settled beyond doubt by the genesis account itself.

The YEC arguments you provided all rely on the usage of the word in other areas of the Bible. To say that Genesis 1 clearly shows that these "days" are 24-hour days but use arguments that are dependent on anything but Genesis 1 is self-contradicting. But look what you say here:

 

Day and night (as periods of dark and light) cannot exist without the sun. The words can.

Excellent, you finally understand what i was trying to say. ...No, i doubt you do.

 

Now which parts of that do you not understand. God separates light from darkness, calls it day and night, even uses the words evening and morning. So the day is 24 hours, there is no sun, and the whole thing has just collapsed into the pile of allegorical nonsense that it always was. Which is, of course, the point. The whole account is illogical, wrong in most important details, and in many places actually self-contradictory. What do you expect from an ancient hebrew writer? Accuracy? It is a creation myth, not history.

Since it is apparent that you will never admit that it is logical to claim an undefinite length of time because there is no sun at that point in time, Genesis 1 will always appear illogical to you. It is no wonder why you try so hard to argue that these are 24-hour days, because there is no other way for you to argue that Genesis 1 is illogical. In other words, if it ain't illogical, you are unwilling.

 

This is simple logic: if it is illogical one way but logical another way, then you must accept the way that is logical. After all, that is what being reasonable is all about.

 

You get half-way there and then can't face the ovbvious concluson - GENESIS IS WRONG.

See, i knew i could doubt you. First you say that the words "day," "night," "evening" and "morning" can exist without the sun, and now here you are claiming this. What will you say next?

 

They are not and never have been on equal terms. Science trumps religion everytime. You cannot name one single time when religious has proven correct over a scientific theory - it has never happened and it never will. The notion that there is some parity between the two is wishful thinking. All science is subject to test - including the theories of evolution, stellar formation, dating of the earth, the appearance and order of species. All of it - tested. Religion is not testable because it is a matter of faith. You can't test the bible account because there is no evidence for it. It isn't even logically coherent as you have just seen.

Once again QED Case proven.

What you have been trying to show is that the interpretations of Genesis 1 have been unscientific. However, even if these interpretations contradict reality, to even state that they are unscientific, in that they contradict scientific theory, begs the question (let me know if you need me to explain to you why such logic begs the question). Likewise, it may be so that the interpretation is false, but the account is true. And as mentioned before, scientific theories are not absolute.

 

To add to this, the dating of the Earth, supposedly 4.55 billion years (this age is itself an estimation which is based on other axioms, assumptions), is Biblically allowed; as mentioned before, the Earth was already in existence before the First Day. The appearance and order of the species is Biblically explainable, as i have so been arguing. The concept of universal rebirth that i have stated a while back explains prehistoric creatures. Stellar formation, assuming the formation of our universe, that is, the stars and planets therein, any explanation is practically Biblically allowed, since the formation is Biblically vague. The Genesis account does indeed contradict the theory of evolution, but the theory of evolution isn't a strong theory to begin with.

 

I'm afraid you are just gibbering now. You don't understand the basic science and you certainly don't understand photonic frequencies. Neither did the bible authors which is why they get in such a pickle. Light and heat are two different things caused by the same particles at different frequencies. Ever seen a glow-worm? It is hot? No. Light in the visible spectrum doesn't tranport heat - that is infra-red which you cannot see. So I'm afraid once again the case is lost for you and yet again we have evidence that Genesis is wrong.

And once again, we see you assume a definition where it does not fit. And once again, because of your assumption, you claim something is wrong. Which, once again, you have built another straw man. Just because you want "light" to bear the extreme scientific definition for it, doesn't mean the author of Genesis 1 wanted it to.

 

Let's even assume your view of the Biblical authors just for a second to even show what i am saying is true. You say the Biblical authors did not understand basic science. Cool. Now, why then would you even try to assume that what they called "light" is the extreme scientific definition of light? Are you even listening to yourself at this point? I do believe the problem here is not with the Biblical authors but with you and your forced assumptions. What you speak of, therefore, is irrelevant; whether you finally see that is beyond me.

 

At -270C they would not die out, they would never have been born. Until the sun is created there can be no life on earth. It isn't a case of continuing, it could never start. Since you have absolutely no evidence that there was a sun before the 4th day then you have absolutely no evidence that there was any life on earth before that time.

 

Repeating a lie does not make it true. You are simply changing the bible account to try and wriggle out of a hole - dishonest of course, because you claim that when others do this they are being 'un-biblical'. The word 'all' means 'all' and your attempt to redefine it will, like the rest of this, simply fail.

 

But again you are just redefining what the Genesis account actually says.

Now you say that this is well before the rest of the Genesis account, but it cannot be so because the heavens are created in the Genesis account on day 4.

The only way they would not have been born is if we assume that they could not have previously existed. However, the concept of universal rebirth that i have stated a while back does not make that assumption but allows for them to have previously existed; and the fact that they are dead today implies that they used to be alive.

 

If i were to assert argument from ignorance, i would not be out of place. Nevertheless, since i feel i would be somewhat inconsistent, i won't. But i don't need evidence?we are talking about theories. Be that as it may, as i have so been arguing, the creatures mentioned in Genesis 1 are those that are still alive today. Following from that, since we have discovered fossils of prehistoric creatures and since the Earth was in existence before the First Day, it is safe to say that at some point in time, there was life at some point in time before the Third Day (you say Fourth Day, but plants, according to the Bible, were in existence before the Fourth Day?so, technically, i do have evidence).

 

Again, if you wish to avoid context, that is your choice. But if you are going to continue, then i request that you please stop making statements that avoid context. Any other time i would not think that i would require providing example after example just to show that "all" is defined by context. Here is another example: I see a friend of mine has a bag of M&Ms. Knowing that he is willing to share, i ask for all the green M&Ms. Am i asking for all the green M&Ms to have ever existed, whether digested or yet-to-be digested, or just the ones he has left in the bag? Please do not avoid this question, i want you to answer it (if i don't receive an answer, i will ask again till you do). Also, would you like more examples that illustrate that "all" is defined by context? I have plenty more. Please, do ask for more.

 

Let's not forget that you call me dishonest for also mentioning that in Genesis 2, Adam provides a name for the animals.

 

As mentioned before, the Bible states that there are several heavens. Explicitly, the Bible mentions three heavens; however, it also implies that there are more than three heavens, since the three heavens it mentions are not the ones that God is said to be stationed at. To say that the Bible says that none of these heavens were created until the Fourth Day is illogical and not Biblical, especially if we consider that there would be no space to put the Earth in if none of these existed until the Fourth Day. A "heaven" need not consist of stars and planets in order to be called a heaven. Stars and planets merely help us distinguish things visually.

 

It doesn't actually matter anyway because we know that the earth was formed, not created, and this happened about 4.55 billion years ago - after the sun had sparked into life. So once again the attempt to creatively interpret the bible to suit the known facts is simply doomed before it starts.

You can't make something out of nothing. For that reason, even if it is the case that the Earth was formed, the thing it is made out of was at one point caused into existence (created), therefore, in essence, the Earth was created. As mentioned, it is impossible for us to state whether or not the sun came before the Earth or vice versa, because we weren't there to see it happen.

[Bikerman 2]

To be clear, do you mean to limit these theories to the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution? Or do you have in mind other scientific theories?

Limit? Why should I limit science?

Nevertheless, whether you want to admit it or not, a scientific theory is not absolute. Remember when you said this too? Doesn't matter how many times they "pass the test;" a scientific theory is a scientific theory; they are a formulation of concepts and interpretations, whose premises are often taken as fact when these premises may have no proof for themselves. I can derive my own scientific theory from Genesis 1—in fact, i may have already done so in this topic.

You don't understand the basics of science and everything you have said to date is pretty much gibberish. You don't understand the difference between axioms and premise and hypotheses. Scientific theory = pretty damn certain. A scientific theory is one which all the best scientists in the world have had a go at - trying to tear it apart - and failed to do so. It is backed by multiple strands of evidence from multiple disciplines and can be falsified at any time with just a single measurement - but it has survived.

 

And what do you offer against theory? A self-contradictory myth from several thousand years ago that you keep reinterpreting but still can't make any sense out of?

 

You also confuse the problems of induction and deduction. The are actually very few assumptions in the BB theory and all of them make predictions which can be and have been tested. That's the thing about science - if it can't be tested it isn't science - we call it pseudo-science or religion.

So when the big bang theory says - take the temp in space and you will find it is around 3 degrees absolute - and we take the temp and find 2.7-3 degrees absolute that is good. Then when the theory says - hang on we should be getting a lot of em interference because of the initial state - and a couple of decades later scientists discover exactly that interference then that is good And the theory says - you should observe x amount of hydrogen and y amount of helium and z amount of silicon - and so on - and we do indeed observe those amounts, then you have something approaching a theory. Not enough by a long chalk, but it would take hours to list all the supporting evidence and there is no real need.

While it may be the case that YOM can be found elsewhere in the Bible with a number before it, that doesn't mean you'll find it used in the same way it is used in Genesis 1. If you haven't noticed, these other instances are individual instances that do not belong to any noticeable group. The ones in Genesis 1, it is obvious that they form a pattern and therefore form a group.

Yet another lie. You are just making it up as you go. First you say that no other use of Yom is associated with a number - lie. Then I tell you that is rubbish and there are 200 such uses. Now you claim to know these, after denying they existed. Finally you try to invent some spurious distinction relying on not 'belonging to a group?'

More nonsense. Exodus 20 contains the word Yom used with an ordinal in exactly the same type of grouping, as does Deuteronomy 9.

 

You don't know what you are talking about, which I can forgive, but just lying your way out of a hole? Nah, that's not be tolerated.

The YEC arguments you provided all rely on the usage of the word in other areas of the Bible. To say that Genesis 1 clearly shows that these "days" are 24-hour days but use arguments that are dependent on anything but Genesis 1 is self-contradicting.

Genesis 1:3-5 is all that is needed.

וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־ עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־ בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃ פ

And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night And the evening and the morning were the first day

I don't have to rely on the first argument (even though it is water-tight) - this alone is sufficient. Evening + morning = Yom = Day.

Clearly it cannot mean 'period of time' because he has defined it as morning+evening. QED

Since it is apparent that you will never admit that it is logical to claim an undefinite length of time because there is no sun at that point in time, Genesis 1 will always appear illogical to you. It is no wonder why you try so hard to argue that these are 24-hour days, because there is no other way for you to argue that Genesis 1 is illogical. In other words, if it ain't illogical, you are unwilling.

You present nothing logical because you don't recognise logic when you see it. The fact that the author didn't bring the sun in until later is your problem, not mine - that is what it says. it is wrong. Your excuse is that whenever it is wrong you have to make something else up...circular argument.

This bit of the bible is wrong => BUT

The bible is not wrong therefore you have interpreted it wrong => THEREFORE

An interpretation which is possible is the only correct one => THEREFORE

I will invent one that works and twist it to fit. => THEREFORE

The bible is correct.

It's the nightmare example of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy - and so obvious I am certain that my 12 year old nephew would spot it in seconds.

 

This is simple logic: if it is illogical one way but logical another way, then you must accept the way that is logical. After all, that is what being reasonable is all about.

But as I said you wouldn't recognise logic if you fell over it. The passage is illogical - deal with it. If it is illogical it is wrong. That is the way we do things. You don't get another go, there are no mulligans.

See, i knew i could doubt you. First you say that the words "day," "night," "evening" and "morning" can exist without the sun, and now here you are claiming this. What will you say next?

Clearly they can exist without the sun. Anything can exist when you are God. It just isn't logical to use the words before you describe how they come about. Unfortunately the author didn't think it through and didn't know enough about cosmology to realise his mistake. It is not a mystery, it is just wrong.

What you have been trying to show is that the interpretations of Genesis 1 have been unscientific. However, even if these interpretations contradict reality, to even state that they are unscientific, in that they contradict scientific theory, begs the question (let me know if you need me to explain to you why such logic begs the question). Likewise, it may be so that the interpretation is false, but the account is true. And as mentioned before, scientific theories are not absolute.

They either contradict scientific theory or not. You obviously don't know what begging the question means either, or you would see that since I haven't asserted my conclusion in the premise, then it is not begging the question. Logic 101.

What I have done is show WHY it contradicts scientific theory - seeds before sun; wrong sequence of animals & plants;e completely wrong sequence of object creation. It is wrong in so many ways.

To add to this, the dating of the Earth, supposedly 4.55 billion years (this age is itself an estimation which is based on other axioms, assumptions), is Biblically allowed; as mentioned before, the Earth was already in existence before the First Day.

No that is just what YOU say, not the bible.The bible says "In the beginning God created __ the heaven and the earth". If you want to say that there is a significant gap between this 'beginning' and the next bit ('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') then you need to remember what we said about photons. So here we have no light or heat therefore the waters do not exist because they are ice. No matter if you say there is a gap of a day or a billion years before 'the spirit moves', it makes sod-all difference because the earth is a black ice-ball for that period.

The appearance and order of the species is Biblically explainable, as i have so been arguing.

Err...you are arguing that the genesis account is accurate, and now you say that the appearance and order is biblically explainable. Do you know what a tautology is? Do you actually know anything at all?

The concept of universal rebirth that i have stated a while back explains prehistoric creatures.

It explains nothing because it is, like the rest, cretinous nonsense. No sun = no life. Simple like so.

Stellar formation, assuming the formation of our universe, that is, the stars and planets therein, any explanation is practically Biblically allowed, since the formation is Biblically vague.

It doesn't make any difference. You can't have the earth before the sun - doesn't work. That one mistake blows it to bits.

The Genesis account does indeed contradict the theory of evolution, but the theory of evolution isn't a strong theory to begin with.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Evolution is at least as well supported evidentially as the theory of gravity. Care to bet your life that the theory of gravity is wrong? Go jump of a high building and test.

 

When you make statements about scientific theory they mean precisely nothing because you don't understand the theory in the first place. It is typical of creationists to blithely assert that this theory is wrong and that theory is weak, when they haven't the foggiest notion what the theory actually is.

And once again, we see you assume a definition where it does not fit. And once again, because of your assumption, you claim something is wrong. Which, once again, you have built another straw man. Just because you want "light" to bear the extreme scientific definition for it, doesn't mean the author of Genesis 1 wanted it to.

 

In which case Genesis 1 is scientifically wrong. QED again.There is no straw man, just someone with straw for brains trying to pretend he isn't talking nonsense. 'Extreme scientific definition' is more gibberish.

Let's even assume your view of the Biblical authors just for a second to even show what i am saying is true. You say the Biblical authors did not understand basic science. Cool. Now, why then would you even try to assume that what they called "light" is the extreme scientific definition of light? Are you even listening to yourself at this point? I do believe the problem here is not with the Biblical authors but with you and your forced assumptions. What you speak of, therefore, is irrelevant; whether you finally see that is beyond me.

If they could see then it was light - photons with a certain frequency. There is no such thing as an 'extreme scientific definition'. The word 'extreme' is completely misused and redundant. I make no assumptions at all. I can easily demonstrate the difference between visible light and heat, and I can repeat the demonstration as many times as I like.

 

I've realised that I'm giving you far too much credit by bothering to continue to read your gibberish, when it is increasingly obvious that

a) You don't know your own bible

b ) You are not honest

c) You haven't a clue what science is all about and

d) You think that because you invent something it is true or logical...

 

Troll or Moron?....I can't decide, but neither is worth more effort...

 

try pictures, might be easier....

 

[media]http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/]

[media]http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/]

[media]http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/]

[media]http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/]

Edited September 1, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Limit? Why should I limit science?

I do not know why you would limit science, but i didn't say that you have, and you did not answer my question. What are all the scientific theories you have been so assuming?

 

You don't understand the basics of science and everything you have said to date is pretty much gibberish. You don't understand the difference between axioms and premise and hypotheses. Scientific theory = pretty damn certain. A scientific theory is one which all the best scientists in the world have had a go at - trying to tear it apart - and failed to do so. It is backed by multiple strands of evidence from multiple disciplines and can be falsified at any time with just a single measurement - but it has survived.

If you are going to state something like it is fact, at least explain why. What is the difference between an axiom, premise and hypothesis? Can you separate the three?

 

"Pretty damn certain." I am sure that's what they said about Newtonian physics before Einstein came around. I'm sure Stephen Hawking was "pretty damn certain" about his theory that information is lost within a black hole, but now he is trying to show instances where that isn't the case. If you haven't yet noticed, "pretty damn certain" is science fiction. Survival, therefore, does not mean it is true or as valid as one may think. As mentioned before, anything that is subject to tests is subject to correction, therefore it is not safe to assume certainty. Also, when one assumes as zealous as you have that certain theories are sound, this causes there to exist those who do not test but assume it true always. When we go to school we are taught conclusions to theories though the premises to these theories are often avoided. Rarely do you see anyone question the material, because the material is teaching things as if it were undeniable (and perhaps because of ignorance from the students). And so, they can go through their entire life believing it as such. If you choose to continue supporting science as zealous as you have so been doing, at least remember that certainty can be a delusion.

 

And what do you offer against theory? A self-contradictory myth from several thousand years ago that you keep reinterpreting but still can't make any sense out of?

Only your interpretation has been contradictory to the text. And the only thing from my interpretation that i have been willing to modify is that "light" in "let there be light" could actually be stellar formation and that when the sun, moon and stars are introduced in the Fourth Day, that it means they have finally fully formed, which follows from my argument of relativity.

 

You also confuse the problems of induction and deduction. The are actually very few assumptions in the BB theory and all of them make predictions which can be and have been tested. That's the thing about science - if it can't be tested it isn't science - we call it pseudo-science or religion.

So when the big bang theory says - take the temp in space and you will find it is around 3 degrees absolute - and we take the temp and find 2.7-3 degrees absolute that is good. Then when the theory says - hang on we should be getting a lot of em interference because of the initial state - and a couple of decades later scientists discover exactly that interference then that is good And the theory says - you should observe x amount of hydrogen and y amount of helium and z amount of silicon - and so on - and we do indeed observe those amounts, then you have something approaching a theory. Not enough by a long chalk, but it would take hours to list all the supporting evidence and there is no real need.

Where did i confuse problems of induction and deduction?

 

When someone states "this" happened, do they know how it happened? When trying to figure out how something occurred, you cannot work yourself down, because that is to work from the cause down to the event. Instead, you have to work yourself up, from the event to the cause. Deduction is working yourself down. Induction is working yourself up. Your example of how the Big Bang theory is supported shows induction, because you are working yourself up. We both know induction is more prone to error than deduction. For that reason, you have to be very careful what you call fact or truth.

 

While you may find that there is no reason to list all supporting evidence, in a debate "what is known to be true" is often irrelevant. That is, it is not safe to assume something as true where it is not obviously so. And by "obviously" i do not mean personally discovered or convicted but observable by anyone. In a debate, all premises to a conclusion must be given, or else you have no argument, because an argument consists of these things. In a debate, therefore, you can't claim something as if it were fact without showing it to be so. Or else each side would have equal grounds; there would be no difference in weight between each party's statements.

 

While your example implies certain premises of the Big Bang theory, as you say it does not fully entail the Big Bang theory, and so does not prove the Big Bang theory. You might try to argue that the audience could look up the information themselves, but that is not the job of the audience (or the one questioning). The debaters are supposed to be providing the material.

 

Yet another lie. You are just making it up as you go. First you say that no other use of Yom is associated with a number - lie. Then I tell you that is rubbish and there are 200 such uses. Now you claim to know these, after denying they existed. Finally you try to invent some spurious distinction relying on not 'belonging to a group?'

More nonsense. Exodus 20 contains the word Yom used with an ordinal in exactly the same type of grouping, as does Deuteronomy 9.

 

You don't know what you are talking about, which I can forgive, but just lying your way out of a hole? Nah, that's not be tolerated.

My argument on this has not changed. Just because you said it has doesn't mean it has. You can retrace my posts to see that this is what i have said: I said the pattern is not found anywhere else in the Bible that is found in Genesis 1. The pattern is the grouping i have mentioned. The only thing you'll find outside of Genesis 1 are individual instances (as to say they are not part of a sequence; where the other instances can be removed and still make sense, for they do not imply the other), not of any group or number pattern.

 

There is no contradiction between what i have said; i have not lied. You will find my words to be true even with Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 9.

 

Genesis 1:3-5 is all that is needed.I don't have to rely on the first argument (even though it is water-tight) - this alone is sufficient. Evening + morning = Yom = Day.

Clearly it cannot mean 'period of time' because he has defined it as morning+evening. QED

The time passed between "morning" and "evening" for any context is a period of time. If you have forgotten, "period" is ambiguous. Therefore any length of time is allowed. Therefore they can very well mean "period of time."

 

Regardless, equating to "day" does not imply 24 hours, given the context. Chronologically speaking, Genesis is said to have been written before any other book of the Bible. Given that Genesis 1 accounts for the act of relative creation, it makes sense that what is written in Genesis 1 is the perfect start of the Bible. Since the textual assumption starts off at a time before the sun's formation, before there was any human to assume a 24-hour period for "day," it is safe to assume that "morning" and "evening" and "day" do not assume the sun's existence. Therefore all we have left is the figurative form of the Hebrew for "day." "Evening" and "morning," therefore, can mean the time of an act (evening—Hebrew ereb, derived from arab, which also means "to undertake; to engage") and the completion of an act (morning—Hebrew boqer, derived from baqar, which, figuratively, also means to admire).

 

You present nothing logical because you don't recognise logic when you see it. The fact that the author didn't bring the sun in until later is your problem, not mine - that is what it says. it is wrong. Your excuse is that whenever it is wrong you have to make something else up...circular argument.

This bit of the bible is wrong => BUT

The bible is not wrong therefore you have interpreted it wrong => THEREFORE

An interpretation which is possible is the only correct one => THEREFORE

I will invent one that works and twist it to fit. => THEREFORE

The bible is correct.

It's the nightmare example of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy - and so obvious I am certain that my 12 year old nephew would spot it in seconds.

Actually, the fact that the author didn't introduce the sun until the Fourth Day merely supports my claim. Therefore it is not a problem for me. What would have been a problem for me is if they introduced the sun in the First Day, before the mention of any "day." But they didn't, so all is good.

 

I have not changed my position concerning the meaning of "day" not even once throughout this entire discussion, nor have i used support that isn't Biblical, therefore it cannot be said i have "invented" (as if to say that i have added things that are not found in Scripture) an interpretation.

 

It should be noted, however, that both of our interpretations are possible. For that reason i would not state that those that are possible are the only ones that can be correct. I might, however, state that the most accurate one is the correct one—even if it is not logically the case. It should also be noted that this part of your post did not provide a (relevant) response to the part of my post that you quote.

 

Clearly they can exist without the sun. Anything can exist when you are God. It just isn't logical to use the words before you describe how they come about. Unfortunately the author didn't think it through and didn't know enough about cosmology to realise his mistake. It is not a mystery, it is just wrong.

Actually, it is logical to use a word before defining it. That is how you introduce a word. Dictionaries do it all the time, mentioning the word before their definition. The only difference with Genesis 1 is that it is not explicitly defined. There is no need to bring in the topic of cosmology here; it is irrelevant, therefore no mistake.

 

No that is just what YOU say, not the bible.The bible says "In the beginning God created __ the heaven and the earth". If you want to say that there is a significant gap between this 'beginning' and the next bit ('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') then you need to remember what we said about photons. So here we have no light or heat therefore the waters do not exist because they are ice. No matter if you say there is a gap of a day or a billion years before 'the spirit moves', it makes sod-all difference because the earth is a black ice-ball for that period.

You have not shown that the supposed age of the Earth is not Biblically allowed. Also, it is not "the heaven"—that is an error of the KJV translation. The Hebrew is plural, so it should be rendered as "the heavens."

 

Concerning the water world during the time where the existence of light has not yet been introduced, i have no Biblical explanation. The only way to contradict intuition and to scientifically prove that a water world (or at least water that isn't frozen) is possible without a source of heat is to find such a thing else where in this universe. This instance in the Bible, therefore, is arguably theoretical.

 

Err...you are arguing that the genesis account is accurate, and now you say that the appearance and order is biblically explainable. Do you know what a tautology is? Do you actually know anything at all?

 

It explains nothing because it is, like the rest, cretinous nonsense. No sun = no life. Simple like so.

It doesn't make any difference. You can't have the earth before the sun - doesn't work. That one mistake blows it to bits.

 

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Evolution is at least as well supported evidentially as the theory of gravity. Care to bet your life that the theory of gravity is wrong? Go jump of a high building and test.

 

When you make statements about scientific theory they mean precisely nothing because you don't understand the theory in the first place. It is typical of creationists to blithely assert that this theory is wrong and that theory is weak, when they haven't the foggiest notion what the theory actually is.

 

In which case Genesis 1 is scientifically wrong. QED again.There is no straw man, just someone with straw for brains trying to pretend he isn't talking nonsense. 'Extreme scientific definition' is more gibberish.

 

If they could see then it was light - photons with a certain frequency. There is no such thing as an 'extreme scientific definition'. The word 'extreme' is completely misused and redundant. I make no assumptions at all. I can easily demonstrate the difference between visible light and heat, and I can repeat the demonstration as many times as I like.

 

I've realised that I'm giving you far too much credit by bothering to continue to read your gibberish, when it is increasingly obvious that

a) You don't know your own bible

b ) You are not honest

c) You haven't a clue what science is all about and

d) You think that because you invent something it is true or logical...

 

Troll or Moron?....I can't decide, but neither is worth more effort...

 

try pictures, might be easier....

 

I do know what a tautology is, and i also know that science is dependent on a tautology (math). If you are trying to imply that if something is a tautology it is false, then you would be wrong, especially since truth itself is a tautology. But this doesn't change the fact that the appearance of animals mentioned by science is Biblically explainable. And, no, i have not just now started arguing this; this is something i presented a long while back.

 

The fact that there is no life at the beginning of the rebirth is what explains the different appearances of life at different set times. Believe it or not, stating that there cannot be any life without the sun is merely in support of my claim. The only reason, then, to claim that i am spewing non-sense is due to your own misunderstandings, most likely caused by your own assumptions. I'll withhold on responding to the part about not being able to have the Earth before the sun till i respond to the videos you have posted.

 

The theory of evolution is solely dependent on inductive reasoning. It is not deductive, because you can't work yourself down. You have to go up the supposed ancestral genealogy in order to even determine any genealogy. And that itself is an inductive process, since we do not already know what descends from what—we have to guess, and all of this is from induction, accepting things merely for the sake of progress. And this is what makes the theory of evolution a weak theory, because it is dependent on a system of logic that is highly prone to error. I will also point out just how illogical these decisions can become and without much if any testing (which you say science is all about tests) from the very video series you have so posted. So stay tune. Also, me testing out the theory of gravity doesn't prove that the theory of evolution is equal to it in validity.

 

The word "extreme" is meant merely for going beyond what was (is) intended. Your ability to differentiate between visible light and heat is irrelevant to the meaning of the word "light" in Genesis 1. The irony in all of this, is that the very video series you have posted argues for what i have been arguing: that "light" in Genesis 1 is the practical use of the word that includes both heat and visible light. This implies that the "evidence" that you post in order to show that you are correct, you yourself do not even listen or read it before posting. This only eventually makes you look inconsistent. It is to your benefit, therefore, that you take the time to read or listen to what you post from an external source before posting it.

 

I don't believe that someone who has yet to use derogatory titles and ad hominem statements can be called a troll. Why you feel the need to use these methods at all is beyond me. Nevertheless, if you wish to call me a troll, a moron, a liar, to say i have straw for brains, and everything else you have so called me or have attributed to me, whether implicitly or explicitly, that is your choice and i am not offended—it doesn't bother me. Just consider being consistent and not mentioning irrelevant things such as these. Now on to the videos...

 

Part 1

 

Irrelevant; it doesn't provide any arguments either for or against anything; it is merely for the sake of introduction.

 

Part 2

 

This video talks about how water could not have existed without stars. According to the video, the death of a star causes oxygen to exist. It is understandable why one would think that the existence of a star is required for the formulation of oxygen, since intuition would dictate from the implied assumptions that stars would be one of the first things formed by the Big Bang. To introduce "yom" here, as the video does, is irrelevant. The video argues nothing different than what you have been arguing. Therefore there is no reason for me to repeat my argument against it. It is interesting that the video shows a young-earth creationist making an interesting, rhetorical statement. However, the same can be said for the assumption of 24-hour days: if you did not use any external sources but the Bible alone, would anyone be able to know or prove that every instance of "day" are 24-hour days? No, they wouldn't; there is no way to prove such a thing internally. The only reasoning that could be used is inductive reasoning, forming the assumption that, "We use 'day' to mean a 24-hour day, so they must too!"—which is what the narrator does, more explicitly shown in part 3 of the series, the part concerning the astronauts. But to get back to how water can pre-exist stars: I have already provided an explanation, it is implied within my concept of universal rebirth. However, as we shall see in one of the following videos, both the concept of rebirth and the death of stars is irrelevant for the Earth to generate water. Anyone who doesn't pay close attention to detail would easily miss this.

 

Part 3

 

The video starts off by saying that light could not have existed without the existence of stars. However, it is known that interstellar clouds, of which look nothing like what we call a "star," give off visible light. Since there were no humans in existence at the time of the creation of light, this means it is whatever light that is visible to God. To say that there was no light for "such and such" length of time, that is irrelevant, because it is obvious that the text is at the point where light is introduced. Whatever generated visible light at the point in time and afterwards where light is Biblically introduced, therefore, due to there being no explicitly definite source mentioned within Scripture, anything that gives off visible light is textually allowed. The separation and terminology following the introduction of light, of light and darkness as "day" and "night," due to the ambiguity of the text, the only thing we can assume for "day" and "night" is something that is at least metaphoric or figurative.

 

Part 4

 

This part in the series, the narrator introduces a very old and common argument by unbelievers surrounding the KJV rendering of the word raqiya—"firmament." In every instance of the argument i have seen, unbelievers use external, unrelated sources in order to try and define what the Biblical "firmament" is, of which the narrator in this video does no different. While he is correct in what word raqiya implies from the Hebrew language (i.e. to expand, since raqiya is derived from raqa—to pound out), it is incorrect to state that it also means that within the visible arch, the sun, moon and stars are inside this visible arch. He goes on to try and list the other visible properties that are supposedly described elsewhere in the Bible. He starts off by stating that this so-called "dome" (already simply using this word shows his assumptions) is a surface but provides no verses as evidence. Then he states that God can sit on His throne on this surface, but the verses shown at this point in the video (Gen 7:11-12) do not even show this to be the case. Then he says it is described as tin or crystal, but, again, the verses he shows (Gen 7:11-12) does not illustrate that information. He then speaks about the windows of heaven; finally the verses he shows actually do say "windows of heaven;" however, this is obviously a poetic use of the word arubbah in Scripture.

 

Remember when i said that unbelievers for the word "firmament" try to use external, unrelated sources for their argument? Proof of the narrator in the video that he is doing it here too is founded at 4:06 into the video. Note at the right, upper corner that says, "Heaven of Fire for Greeks and others." In what way, then, should we use this figure as a basis for any of our assumptions surrounding the word "firmament," as meant Biblically? Anything following from it, therefore, is irrelevant; likewise, so is any exact immitation (which he shows a colored version later on in the video, copyright of Michael Palmer—perhaps the narrator's brother?). The proper understanding of the word raqiya is the visible arch that separates the celestial bodies above it and our sky (the area where the clouds are and where the birds fly, et cetera) that is below it. The firmament encircles the entire Earth (obviously, since raqiya is derived from raqa, which means to expand).

 

Now the video introduces the "early Earth." The part of the video i want to point out here is that the video is showing that water is being generated without any introduction or mention of any stars. The way the video is illustrating the formation of water implies that it is coming straight from the Earth. This seems to contradict one of the narrator's statements in a previous video. This is to be expected, though, from those who make video series such as this. It is obvious that this person is not a scientist and is getting all of his information from video documentaries from the Discovery channel and other sources. I will admit, however, that the way the video describes how water on Earth came into existence contradicts the Bible if and only if we assume that both the Biblical event and our scientific predictions on how and when the Earth formed, is occurring for the very first time. But Biblically the Earth was already in existence for an indefinite amount of time, which allows for both to be true, though the Biblical age of the Earth is therefore implied to be a lot more than simply 4.55 billion years.

 

What i find very interesting, though very odd as well, that the narrator mentions in the video is that life is required in order to form our atmosphere for oxygen to exist. This "life" would be what "pumps oxygen." However, that doesn't make sense, because then the water would not have been able to form due to there being no oxygen (like the narrator has stated in a previous video). It is appearing to me more and more that this person, when making the videos, did not take all the time necessary to formulate a series that forms no contradictions within itself.

 

Part 5

 

I know you only posted four videos, and while the series isn't complete, i will go beyond the four videos you posted and into some of the other videos within the same series.

 

Now the series starts getting a bit more consistent. In the previous video there was no mention of stars. In this video he comes back to the notion that oxygen could not exist without stars. However, that is all that is mentioned about stars it seems, that oxygen could not exist without stars; the remainder of the video fails to provide an instance where a star or many stars helped to form water on Earth. So it seems that water on Earth does not require stars, whether scientifically or Biblically, for, again, the water is illustrated to have formed on its own without the intervention of stars. The remainder of the video also touches upon what i have mentioned about the previous video: that this information only contradicts the Biblical account under certain assumptions.

 

Being on the topic of land formation, i would like to emphasize the water world that both the Bible and the video mentions and of the implications of an Earth that is older than 4.55 billion years. If we assume that the Earth had a previous "existence," in that there existed life on it at a time previous to the creation account, then it would follow that the Earth was smaller than what it is now. For if there were land animals in existence in prehistoric times, it follows that there was land. But in the Bible the Earth is introduced as a water world. This would mean that something occurred on Earth where the water rose above the earth to where land was no longer visible above the waters. Later on in the Biblical account, the land rises above the waters (yet again), which implies the size of the Earth got bigger.

 

Part 6

 

This part in the series talks about life on earth, but specifically plant life, on its first appearance and on its growth process. It should be obvious to anyone that photosynthesis is not required for seeds to grow into a plant except perhaps after reaching a certain stage in the growth process, a stage that has already peeked outside of the dirt, out into the air and where would be the open sun. Nevertheless, if you recall our discussion on the First, Third and Fourth Day of the Biblical creation account, on "let there be light," on relative and relevant creation and on plant life, it is easy to derive and explain how plant life could have grown within the implied conditions of the Biblical text. As you have said, the sun, moon and stars mentioned on the Fourth Day could be what we see today. In other words, the Fourth Day introduces "fully"-formed celestial bodies. This, therefore, implies a state for the sun, moon and stars that is not yet fully formed. The sun would not need to be "fully" formed simply to provide heat and light.

 

Part 7

 

Like in the video, you have claimed that the sun could not have formed at a later time than the Earth. However, neither you nor the video have provided any reason that eliminates the possibility of any contrary scenario. If one were to argue that life could not have existed on Earth without the sun therefore the sun had to have come first, this does not prove that the sun came first, because the Earth could have still have started forming before the sun. The video states that scientists believe planets form only within range of a sun. However, the concept of accretion allows for planets to form without a sun, as implied and shown by the video. Ironically, the narrator of the series does not notice this possibility and continues on assuming that the sun had to come first.

 

Now he introduces the theory of the moon crashing into Earth, to say if the moon were introduced on the Fourth Day and plant life on the Third Day, that the moon, if taken both Biblically and scientifically, would have destroyed all plant life that occurred on the Third Day. However, there is no need for me to argue against this segment of the video, as not even the narrator of the series seems to be taking this theory of the moon crashing into Earth seriously, due to his statement being a hypothetical proposition by starting it off with the word "if." Anything else mentioned in the video i have indirectly addressed for the previous videos.

 

Part 8

 

Other people's interpretations are irrelevant to me and for me. But it is not surprising that the narrator of this video series is still assuming that these 6 Days of creation are 24-hour days. This video, therefore, not need a response from me.

 

Part 9

 

This video, along with the following video, shows clearly just how weak the theory of evolution is, due to its inductive reasoning. The video introduces the sea creature commonly referred to as "whales" and tries to show that the first creatures on Earth had to have been land animals and not first sea creatures (birds to be be introduced later in the videos). Neither thick bones nor the discovery of oxygen and carbon isotopes in the teeth prove that it has any relation to sea creatures, because other land animals have the same characteristics. Also, drawings are never proof for anything. Concerning the Hebrew word tan-neen (the word rendered "great whales" in the KJV translations—"great" because of the derived word tan), this word allows for both sea creatures (those that can't live outside the water) and for creatures that spend most of their time in the water but are capable of walking on land. I do not need to try and prove that the assumption that prehistoric creatures are included within the Biblical text work with the text, as i have not argued that prehistoric creatures are included in the Biblical text but the contrary.

 

Part 10

 

Due to inductive reasoning, as shown in this video, you'll be able to come up with many interpretations of the fossil record on how they could have evolved into what we see today. Just like the previous video, i need not address anything, as i have not argued that prehistoric creatures are included in the creation account. Nevertheless, i'll mention a few things about the video. One segment of the video introduces a fossil that has a thick line along the creature's back. According to the video, this line is supposed to illustrate that this dinosaur was covered in feathers. If anyone were to see the fossil, they'll be able to note that this line does not go around the entire creature but it merely runs along the back of the creature from head to tail. This should indicate to anyone that this creature was not covered completely with feathers, if it can even be called feathers. The thick line actually looks like thick fur—like a prehistoric, mohawk hair style; it does not imply that the hair covers its entire body.

 

Later on in the video they show a fossil that indeed looks like it has feathers around its whole body. However, feathers on one creature is not an incentive to claim that other dinosaurs of similar size or shape, especially where the fossil record is not complete for the very creature in question, had feathers as well. For a theory that is within an area that is commonly proclaimed as a king of scrutiny, which we call "science," i fail to see any actual and thorough testing or questioning being done here to even show without a doubt that these inductions are at all valid or worthy of assuming for the sake of progress. But i am not surprised by this, as i already know that science is willing to assume things with or without proof for the sake of progress.

 

Conclusion

 

While the videos were a nice attempt at trying to refute Genesis 1, it did fail to provide a lot of information that it needed to have a sound argument (as i have shown for each part). As mentioned before, in any debate, all premises need be provided in order to form a proper conclusion. Simply stating the conclusion as if it were fact is not enough and it is improper within a debate. I do realize there are more videos in the series that are yet to be released, but i'm not going to wait for them.

 

As for those that say that Scripture is not capable of being tested or affirmed, that is merely said as a form of empty rhetoric. For if that were the case, there would be no way to even formulate a series such as these videos that try to refute or affirm Scripture. It would be pointless, for they would have no basis on where to start. The fact that they are capable and have therefore done so merely shows that Scripture can be tested as much as anything in science.

[Bikerman 2]

"Pretty damn certain." I am sure that's what they said about Newtonian physics before Einstein came around. I'm sure Stephen Hawking was "pretty damn certain" about his theory that information is lost within a black hole, but now he is trying to show instances where that isn't the case. If you haven't yet noticed, "pretty damn certain" is science fiction.

a) Newtonian mechanics still works - Einstein merely extended it to cover 'extreme' cases where speed approaches c. If you want to do a ballistics, trajectory or force calculation on earth you use Newton.

b ) Hawking's speculation about information in BHs is NOT a theory, merely a hypothesis. The uncertainty is known and understood, as is the conjectural nature.

c) Science makes no claim to certainty - you are confusing it with religion.

 

The rest of your posting is the same jibber-jabber as previously and not worth responding to, with a couple of exceptions:

When I say you lie, I mean it literally, eg

While it may be the case that YOM can be found elsewhere in the Bible with a number before it, that doesn't mean you'll find it used in the same way it is used in Genesis 1. If you haven't noticed, these other instances are individual instances that do not belong to any noticeable group. The ones in Genesis 1, it is obvious that they form a pattern and therefore form a group

Blatantly untrue - pretending to specific knowledge which you do not possess and assuming that nobody will call you on it. Bad luck.

When someone states "this" happened, do they know how it happened? When trying to figure out how something occurred, you cannot work yourself down, because that is to work from the cause down to the event. Instead, you have to work yourself up, from the event to the cause. Deduction is working yourself down. Induction is working yourself up. Your example of how the Big Bang theory is supported shows induction, because you are working yourself up. We both know induction is more prone to error than deduction. For that reason, you have to be very careful what you call fact or truth.

You don't know anything of the sort since you don't know what the terms mean.

Induction is where the premises indicate a conclusion but do not necessitate it. The conclusion is therefore probable but not certain.

Deduction is where the premises necessitate the conclusion. The conclusion is therefore certain.

eg Premise :

She looks over 18 yrs old.

Inductive conclusion - She IS over 18 yrs old.

Premises :

a) All dogs are members of the family Canis lupus familiaris

b ) This animal is a dog.

Deductive conclusion - this animal is a member of the family Canis lupus familiaris

 

All this 'working up' and 'working down' is simply jibber-jabber. As I have already said you don't understand the very basics of science and logic, so you have no hope of commenting sensibly, let alone critically on anything.

 

Finally.

The theory of evolution is solely dependent on inductive reasoning.

Hogwash.

Evolution is supported by :

Genetics

1. We can trace the chromosomal differences between species back logically to form a phylogenetic tree. The method used - Cladistics - makes no prior assumptions about genetic relatedness and can easily be tested.

2. DNA, RNA and proteins found in known living systems all have the same chirality. RNA has four chiral centres giving a possible 16 stereoisomers (16 different versions of the same molecule). DNA is similar, as are the proteins. We only EVER find 1 version in all living things which is strong inductive evidence for common descent. Again this is easily tested - find any living thing, or readable DNA with a different chirality.

3. Of the 102 naturally occuring nucleosides, ALL life uses only 4 (deoxyadenosine, deoxythymidine, deoxycytidine, and deoxyguanosine) to synthesise DNA. Again strong inductive evidence for common descent, and again testable.

4. The way in which information is encoded in the 4 nucleosides is universal. There is no a-priori reason why this should be the case, unless there is common descent from a single basic coding system. Massively strong inductive evidence for common descent and easily testable.

There are other more detailed lines of evidence - including protein and DNA functional redundancy, transposons and endogenous retroviruses, but you lack the basic science grounding to understand these and I lack the time or inclination to educate you further.

 

Biological features

Atavistic and vestigeal features. The fact that many animals display vestigeal features is well documented - we have a vestigeal tail (the cocyx), whales have vesigeal limbs - as do dolphins and snakes. There are many other examples of such features - down to the molecular level - which provide compelling evidence of gross changes in morphology which are entirely consistent with evolution, entirely inconsistent with creation, and which fit exactly into the phylogenetic tree meantioned previously.

 

All of the above are also predictive - if a new species emerges then it can be predicted to obey all the above rules. If a new fossil is discovered then it will conform to the phylogenetic tree (or evolution is falsified). If fossilised DNA/RNA is discovered then it will have the 4 nucleosides in the exact chirality of all other life and will use the same encoding pattern.

 

Direct observation

There are many observed speciation events where scientists have actually witnessed the evolution of a new species (despite what creationist literature likes to claim). Examples would include : maize, S.malheurensis, houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies and drosophila.

 

And I haven't even mentioned the fossil record which is the icing on the cake.

 

Creation accounts for none of these observed features and can predict nothing.

 

So no, evolutionary theory is NOT dependant on inductive reasoning - even if you knew what the word meant.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)