Ex C Bible Study Gen 1 - 1

[mymistake]

 

 

Please bring yourself up to date.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Why is it the disciple of science can continually rewrite the principles which they said were tested and verified by the scientific process, thus without error, yet later are proven to be incorrect, or even found to be without any basis in fact or reality, yet still expect to have credibility? 

 

 

 

You got it backwards.  When a scientist comes up with an idea he doesn't claim that it is the truth or that it was handed down from an all knowing god.  The only claim is that the new idea might be useful.  Other scientists test it and then either reject it or test it further.  If it proves to be useful and withstands all the testing they can throw at it then scientists will use that idea until a better one comes along.  Science makes progress by building upon slightly improving ideas.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 Singularity of what, nothing?  You have to remember that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  If they can neither be created nor destroyed then how did it originate?  

 

 

 

If matter and energy cannot be created then the universe did not originate.  There is no getting around this.  Either we are wrong about creating matter/energy or the universe always exited in some other form.

 

 

What about the law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation.

 

 

I just told you.

 

 

If matter and energy cannot be created   >->  then  >->   the universe did not originate  :: and ::  the universe always exited in some other form.

 

 

 

 

. . . it was derived from the  important idea in ancient Greek philosophy . . . 

 

 

Modern science is millennia ahead of the Bronze Age, literally.  We understand much more then we did back in 270 BC.

[rjn]

 

 Singularity of what, nothing?  You have to remember that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  If they can neither be created nor destroyed then how did it originate?

 

I'm not a physicist, but really, just because we're not entirely sure doesn't mean your particular version of God is the answer. I'm starting to see now what people mean by "God of the gaps". And why are you arguing against matter emerging from nothingness? Isn't that exactly what your God supposedly did? Create everything Ex Nihilo?

 

Honest now: do you believe Genesis to be anything else but a fable?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Please bring yourself up to date.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Why is it the disciple of science can continually rewrite the principles which they said were tested and verified by the scientific process, thus without error, yet later are proven to be incorrect, or even found to be without any basis in fact or reality, yet still expect to have credibility? 

 

 

Justus,

 

The testing and verification involved in the scientific process is performed by flawlessly perfect and infallible people who are incapable of error?  

Or by ordinary men and women who are fallible, imperfect, flawed and capable of error?  

Not the former... the latter.   

 

Therefore, nothing in science is considered to be free from error.

Which is why science is only ever the best explanation we fallible humans can devise, according to the available evidence.  As technology improves and new and better data becomes available and old models and theories are overturned by new ones that are in better agreement with the new evidence.  Lemaitre's 1928 paper lacked the necessary data from particle physics to solve the problem of how the universe inflated itself from his quantum-sized Primeval Atom. Ok, he appealed to quantum theory as a possible solution, but the powerful particle accelerators that were needed to discover this quantum data weren't built until the late 60's and early 70's.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics

 

Lemaitre was on the right track but lacked the necessary understanding of the Grand Unification Theory (GUT) to formulate an accurate description of the universe's origin.  

In GUT, three of the four fundamental forces (Electromagnetism + the Strong and Weak nuclear forces) are unified and give a solution to the ultra-rapid expansion of the universe.  This solution is known as Inflationary theory.  The first step in understanding the unification of the fundamental forces came with the discovery of the Electroweak interaction.  This work was done in the early 70's.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

 

GUT couldn't have been made to work without the foundation of Electroweak unification to build on.

So, in chronological order we have the building of particle accelerators powerful enough to probe the quantum realm in the late 60's, Electroweak unification in the 70's and GUT in the late 70's, allowing Alan Guth to formulate of the Inflationary solution of the early universe's expansion in 1980.  None of this was available to Lemaitre, who died in 1966.

 

And this is why you should bring yourself up to date and not rely on discarded theories that no longer accurately describe or explain what is now known about the universe, Justus.

 

Please do so.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[disillusioned]

 

 

Please bring yourself up to date.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Why is it the disciple of science can continually rewrite the principles which they said were tested and verified by the scientific process, thus without error, yet later are proven to be incorrect, or even found to be without any basis in fact or reality, yet still expect to have credibility? 

 

 

Because nothing is proven by science. It only offers the best explanation based on the available evidence. When the evidence changes due to new observations, the explanations change. Are you beginning to understand this?

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Earth is part of the heavens, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

The scripture uses the term 'heaven' being singular. 

...

 

 

Well, OK then.  Let me restate my observation:

 

The Earth is part of heaven, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth, as would stars, other planets and galaxies when viewed from Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

 

 

The Earth is part of the heavens, at least when viewed from locations other than Earth.  Separating the two in the first sentence of the Bible demonstrates a lack of cosmic awareness by the author.

...

The term 'heaven' in Genesis 1:1 implies the expanse of space that forms the universe.

 

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

 

Since science can't prove anything anyway, as I am told, I guess you'll have to take it on faith...

...

 

I have other choices, as does anyone.  Taking "it" (whatever "it" is) on faith is a poor, cowardly and lazy choice.  Scientific theories provide a certain probability that the conclusions/statements within the theory are correct, with the caveat that the conclusions/statements are falsifiable and subject to adjustment, change or dismissal.  I choose this method instead of a faith-based belief system.

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

But you might consider 'heaven' as matter without mass, maybe like a photon, except instead of visibile light it moves a little faster so you can't see it so it might appear dark, but it is actually light.  And 'earth' as matter having mass say like an atom.

 

 

Please keep your attempt to redefine words to yourself.

[bornagainathiest]

Here is a parallel example from planetary astronomy, to illustrate what I mean, Justus.

This explains why science must always update itself by discarding inferior theories in favor of new and better ones.  Why improvements in technology allow science to change and evolve as new evidence and new data comes to hand.  Why science is neither a fixed and absolute truth, nor a perfect and unchanging explanation of the physical universe.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_Lowell

 

Percival Lowell lived until 1916 and so he saw such technological advances as the automobile, the aircraft and the telephone.

But, for all of his dedication to the study of the planet Mars, he simply didn't have the tools to understand that world as we understand it today.  He died before Nazi Germany was able to make the first practical rockets and before that technology was later adapted to propel spacecraft on voyages of exploration to the red planet.

 

http://mars.nasa.gov/programmissions/missions/log/

 

Now if we take what you have written and apply that to the scientific work of Percival Lowell, then his data about Mars should be without error.

This means that we should still accept that Mars is covered by a network of canals.  We should still accept that these artificial waterways were built by an intelligent race of technologically advanced beings to channel meltwater from that planet's polar caps to their fields.  If we still accept that Lowell's science is without error, then should we expect out orbiters, landers and rovers to photograph these canals.  Shouldn't we expect to see fields of Martian crops being watered by the canals?  Shouldn't we also expect to see the Martians themselves, busily excavating and repairing their canals, planting and harvesting their crops and looking up from their work when they notice our robot rovers rolling over their fields?

 

 

But we don't expect to see these things, do we?  

Instead we expect to see what our probes have told us is actually there and not what Lowell said was there.  His science cannot have been without error.

 

 

So, let me quote Disillusioned.

 

"Because nothing is proven by science. It only offers the best explanation based on the available evidence. When the evidence changes due to new observations, the explanations change. Are you beginning to understand this?"

 

​In Lowell's day, the best explanation based upon the then available evidence was for canals, crops and busy Martians.

But today, thanks to better technology, new evidence and new data, our best explanation is for a dry, cold and probably lifeless Mars.

We must discard Lowell's science in favor of a new explanation that better explains the new data.

 

In Lemaitre's day, the best explanation based upon the then available evidence was for a Primeval atom that exploded to create the universe.

But today, thanks to better technology, new evidence and new data, our best explanation for the universe's origin lies with Inflationary theory.

We must discard Lemaitre's science in favor of a new explanation that better explains the new data.

 

I suspect that you do understand this ...but you refuse to accept it.

 

Should you continue to argue for Lemaitre's Primeval Atom theory... then we'll have our answer.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Margee]

Genesis is a collection of mythical stories created by ancient cultures that created them to account for how life began & why evil exists. It also presents a mythical explanation of how the Hebrew culture came to be. Until Christian Fundamentalism evolved I seriously doubt those stories were taken literally or accepted as real historical events.

 

Essentially, Genesis is a collection of ancient adult fairy tales. The stories themselves are silly, so would would it be necessary to bring science into the conversation to discredit Genesis? The stories are obviously myths & were never intended to be taken literally.

This^^^^^^^

[Storm]

Genesis' account of creation fails for Christians because of two things. The first is that the author of Genesis had no concept of space or planets or the universe, despite being "inspired by the God who created it all". Secondly, people who live today are trying to use knowledge we have in our day and age to explain something that the original author of Genesis had no concept of. It fails on both fronts.

[rjn]

I spent the night reading on Answers in Genesis... Holy cow are those people delusional!

The fact that adults believe in that shit is beyond words. Perhaps Justus would like to comment on that?

[Guest Furball]

Let’s see, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

But then again the term Elohim is plural, not singular but I digress. So let’s change God to primordial atom, heaven to expanse of space and earth to matter and what do we have.

In the beginning there was the primordial atom, which from a highly condensed state from which all space, matter, energy and time rapidly expanded forming the known and observed universe. 

Well, by gosh it does make all the difference in the world doesn’t it.

 

--------------------------

So where did this primordial atom come from?

If this primordial atom contained all the space and matter then how could the age of space and matter be 14 billion years old if it already existed before the time of its rapid expansion?

So if all the known space, matter, energy and time was contained in this primordial atom, then what was external source was causing the primordial atom to condense since an internal source would only condense to the point of equilibrium where the force condensing the primordial atom was equal to the amount of force being produced from within the primordial atom?

Here is a simple one for you, what tree did the pecan tree evolve from?  And how long do you think it takes one species of tree to evolve into another species of tree?

[Guest Furball]

 

^^ ray comfort on steroids ^^

 But if you believe in something at least try to ensure that there is some truth to it

Says the guy who every time is asked to produce evidence to prove his beliefs true runs for the door without responding.

[Guest Furball]

My favorite critique of the bible so far from the thinking atheist website. 

 

An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)

[sdelsolray]

 

 

I think for this thread, and this thread only, I'll be a Christian again. I'll have fun, but be as serious as I know how to be. 

 

First, I'd like to thank MM for starting this thread. I read what Margee wrote, and I wanted to start one, but I knew I wouldn't know where to start! I figured someone would come along and start the thread that was more qualified than me. 

I was wrong.

 

MM, we need to define "the beginning" before we can discuss what happened in it, don't you think? The beginning of the earth and the beginning of the universe don't have to happen at the same time to both be classified as being in "the beginning". 

Do you remember when you were in your mother's womb? Do you remember your creation?  I'll bet you don't, and they didn't both happen at the same time, but they were both in your beginning. 

 

That would be two beginnings (with many endings in between), at least to folks who have actual knowledge of the amount of time between (i) the temporal start of spacetime, matter and energy ("heavens") and (ii) the temporal start of the Earth.

 

 

Compare verse one with the opening from Star wars..."A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away..."  Is that opener supposed to set the scene for what is to follow, or is it supposed to contain all of the science and history of the universe, the galaxy, the exact timeline of all events that came before the statement was made?

I think if one looks at Genesis 1:1 as a declaratory statement that opens the story of humanity, one would see it for what it is, not for what it isn't.

It's not intended to be an apologetic or a scientific paper.

...

 

 

 

Poor analogy.  The Star Wars phrase only references (i) a temporal point in the past ("a long time ago") and (ii) a single location ("a galaxy far far away").  The Bible phrase only references (i) a temporal point in the past ("the beginning") and (ii) two events... (1) creation of heaven and (2) creation of Earth.  The Star War phrase mentions no events at all, so it is merely intended to set the stage for unknown events to follow.  The Bible phrase contains two events, with more claims of events which follow in the story (which are also not accurate when compared to actual history of this universe.  Again, the author of Genesis was ignorant of cosmology, stellar evolution, solar system formation, Earth geological and biological history, among other things.  Put another way, the author of Genesis presented history which is simply wrong.

 

And then there's the elephant in the room...this God character of whom the author claims created all these things.  Mere assertions.

 

...

While it's true that the Earth was formed at a different time than some of the universe isn't an argument. The universe is still being formed. Should we then refrain from speaking of it until it is finished, or may we describe what came before, what now is, and what will be while the universe is still forming?

Certainly to say that the Big Bang happened about 14.5 billion years ago describes an event that took time. Science can speak to Planck time, for example, but it can also speak to "the Big Bang that happened about 14.5 billion years ago" and both are describing the same thing. One to nanoseconds, and the other in a big picture way. If creation happened at one small point or a million small points, it's still the Big Bang.  To say that God created the Heavens and the Earth "in the beginning" is no different than saying "about 14.5 billion years ago there was a Big Bang".

I should also throw in that the Earth was present at and in the Big Bang, albeit not in it's present form, so it's not inaccurate to say that they were created at the same time.

 

 

I was not making an argument when I pointed out that the heaven and the Earth were formed at different times.  I was merely stating scientific facts.  My argument is that the author did not know these facts when he or she wrote Genesis 1:1.  The remainder of your post is nonsense.

 

[sdelsolray]

 

Let’s see, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

But then again the term Elohim is plural, not singular but I digress. So let’s change God to primordial atom, heaven to expanse of space and earth to matter and what do we have.

In the beginning there was the primordial atom, which from a highly condensed state from which all space, matter, energy and time rapidly expanded forming the known and observed universe. 

Well, by gosh it does make all the difference in the world doesn’t it.

 

--------------------------

So where did this primordial atom come from?

If this primordial atom contained all the space and matter then how could the age of space and matter be 14 billion years old if it already existed before the time of its rapid expansion?

So if all the known space, matter, energy and time was contained in this primordial atom, then what was external source was causing the primordial atom to condense since an internal source would only condense to the point of equilibrium where the force condensing the primordial atom was equal to the amount of force being produced from within the primordial atom?

Here is a simple one for you, what tree did the pecan tree evolve from?  And how long do you think it takes one species of tree to evolve into another species of tree?

 

 

 

Disingenuous and intellectually dishonest creationists such as the one you referenced will next invoke the special pleading fallacy, e.g., "Well, the rule that something cannot come from nothing does not apply to my God...He's special." 

[Guest end3]

Ha, wish I had enough energy for this thread...

[duderonomy]

 

 

 

I think for this thread, and this thread only, I'll be a Christian again. I'll have fun, but be as serious as I know how to be. 

 

First, I'd like to thank MM for starting this thread. I read what Margee wrote, and I wanted to start one, but I knew I wouldn't know where to start! I figured someone would come along and start the thread that was more qualified than me. 

I was wrong.

 

MM, we need to define "the beginning" before we can discuss what happened in it, don't you think? The beginning of the earth and the beginning of the universe don't have to happen at the same time to both be classified as being in "the beginning". 

Do you remember when you were in your mother's womb? Do you remember your creation?  I'll bet you don't, and they didn't both happen at the same time, but they were both in your beginning. 

 

That would be two beginnings (with many endings in between), at least to folks who have actual knowledge of the amount of time between (i) the temporal start of spacetime, matter and energy ("heavens") and (ii) the temporal start of the Earth.

 

 

Compare verse one with the opening from Star wars..."A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away..."  Is that opener supposed to set the scene for what is to follow, or is it supposed to contain all of the science and history of the universe, the galaxy, the exact timeline of all events that came before the statement was made?

I think if one looks at Genesis 1:1 as a declaratory statement that opens the story of humanity, one would see it for what it is, not for what it isn't.

It's not intended to be an apologetic or a scientific paper.

...

 

 

 

Poor analogy.  The Star Wars phrase only references (i) a temporal point in the past ("a long time ago") and (ii) a single location ("a galaxy far far away").  The Bible phrase only references (i) a temporal point in the past ("the beginning") and (ii) two events... (1) creation of heaven and (2) creation of Earth.  The Star War phrase mentions no events at all, so it is merely intended to set the stage for unknown events to follow.  The Bible phrase contains two events, with more claims of events which follow in the story (which are also not accurate when compared to actual history of this universe.  Again, the author of Genesis was ignorant of cosmology, stellar evolution, solar system formation, Earth geological and biological history, among other things.  Put another way, the author of Genesis presented history which is simply wrong.

 

And then there's the elephant in the room...this God character of whom the author claims created all these things.  Mere assertions.

 

...

While it's true that the Earth was formed at a different time than some of the universe isn't an argument. The universe is still being formed. Should we then refrain from speaking of it until it is finished, or may we describe what came before, what now is, and what will be while the universe is still forming?

Certainly to say that the Big Bang happened about 14.5 billion years ago describes an event that took time. Science can speak to Planck time, for example, but it can also speak to "the Big Bang that happened about 14.5 billion years ago" and both are describing the same thing. One to nanoseconds, and the other in a big picture way. If creation happened at one small point or a million small points, it's still the Big Bang.  To say that God created the Heavens and the Earth "in the beginning" is no different than saying "about 14.5 billion years ago there was a Big Bang".

I should also throw in that the Earth was present at and in the Big Bang, albeit not in it's present form, so it's not inaccurate to say that they were created at the same time.

 

 

I was not making an argument when I pointed out that the heaven and the Earth were formed at different times.  I was merely stating scientific facts.  My argument is that the author did not know these facts when he or she wrote Genesis 1:1.  The remainder of your post is nonsense.

 

 

 

Genesis 1:1 sets the scene for what happens after. It declares that God, "in the beginning" created the heavens and the Earth. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think it's intended to be a scientific treatise, anymore than "it was a dark and stormy night..." is supposed to reveal the time of night and what kind of storm is going on to the reader of a novel. That comes later.

Is it possible that you are reading too much into this one verse?

You may assert that most of my post is nonsense, but that is only your opinion. You haven't shown that it is. 

[Guest end3]

Genesis 1:1 sets the scene for what happens after. It declares that God, "in the beginning" created the heavens and the Earth. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think it's intended to be a scientific treatise, anymore than "it was a dark and stormy night..." is supposed to reveal the time of night and what kind of storm is going on to the reader of a novel. That comes later.

Is it possible that you are reading too much into this one verse?

You may assert that most of my post is nonsense, but that is only your opinion. You haven't shown that it is.

I got your six...keep up the good work.

[duderonomy]

Thanks End3. Keep in mind I've only reconverted for this thread. My idea is that someone has to represent the Christian/religious angle of it, because it is supposed to be a religious book after all, and I wasn't sure if any Christians would participate.

 

I have to be honest, I've been an ex-Christian for a long enough time now I may not be able to bring the juice like I could have at one time. It'll be fun trying though.

[Justus]

Disingenuous and intellectually dishonest creationists such as the one you referenced will next invoke the special pleading fallacy, e.g., "Well, the rule that something cannot come from nothing does not apply to my God...He's special."

  E =^c x ^c

 

 

 

 

^^ ray comfort on steroids ^^

 But if you believe in something at least try to ensure that there is some truth to it

 

Says the guy who every time is asked to produce evidence to prove his beliefs true runs for the door without responding.

 

 

 How can I prove anything to you furbush?  See below:

 

Because nothing is proven by science. It only offers the best explanation based on the available evidence. When the evidence changes due to new observations, the explanations change. Are you beginning to understand this?

Understand what?

[duderonomy]

 

Disingenuous and intellectually dishonest creationists such as the one you referenced will next invoke the special pleading fallacy, e.g., "Well, the rule that something cannot come from nothing does not apply to my God...He's special."

  E =^c x ^c

 

 

 

 

^^ ray comfort on steroids ^^

 But if you believe in something at least try to ensure that there is some truth to it

 

Says the guy who every time is asked to produce evidence to prove his beliefs true runs for the door without responding.

 

 

 How can I prove anything to you furbush?  See below:

 

Because nothing is proven by science. It only offers the best explanation based on the available evidence. When the evidence changes due to new observations, the explanations change. Are you beginning to understand this?

Understand what?

 

 

So then I take it that you aren't on this thread to discuss Genesis 1:1 at all?  

[disillusioned]

 

Because nothing is proven by science. It only offers the best explanation based on the available evidence. When the evidence changes due to new observations, the explanations change. Are you beginning to understand this?

Understand what?

 

I don't doubt that you are capable of rational thoughts, but I'm beginning to wonder about your ability to string more than one or two of them together.

[Guest end3]

Thanks End3. Keep in mind I've only reconverted for this thread. My idea is that someone has to represent the Christian/religious angle of it, because it is supposed to be a religious book after all, and I wasn't sure if any Christians would participate.

 

I have to be honest, I've been an ex-Christian for a long enough time now I may not be able to bring the juice like I could have at one time. It'll be fun trying though.

I saw where you were a temporary apologist....was just trying to invoke humor. BUT, if you need support...lol.

[Storm]

posted in wrong thread

[Ravenstar]

Wait!!!!.. what about the archetypes/symbology of chaos, water, trees, gardens, dragons and serpents?!!! and how 'creation' and the fight between 'creator' and dragon/serpent and the dispensation of knowledge is a deep mythological and subconscious tale explaining the rise to consciousness of mankind... and how the monotheists subjugated/demonized the goddess creatrix with their changes in the myths/legends?

 

Oh.. wrong chapter... never mind, carry on.... I'll jump in later