Science, the Bible & Evolution

[Brooke]

Tom Hebert1
Member
Member # 2835

  posted 12-08-2005 06:25 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists are finally coming around to the conclusion that there really was an original Adam and an original Eve! 

[Brooke]

I_am_that_I_am

Member
Member # 1238

Member Rated:
   posted 12-08-2005 10:47 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Also, the water from the flood wasn't just supposed to come from above but from the oceans opening up or something like that. I'll see if I can find that, too
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe what you are looking for is fom GEN7:11....all the springs of the great deep burst forth,and the floodgates of heaven were opened.and rain fell on the earth forty day and forty nights.

--------------------
KNOW that as ye do unto the least of thy associates ye do
unto the GOD within THEE that is in the image of the God
without.
E.C.
 

[Brooke]

Pagan

Member
Member # 2369

Member Rated:
   posted 12-08-2005 11:45 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the hell is wrong with you guys?

OF COURSE, there's SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE!

God waved his magic wand and made all this - you, the earth, everyone! Isn't that enough science for you??

--------------------
╔╪╪╪╪╪╪╪╪╗
☼The Pagan ☼
╚╪╪╪╪╪╪╪╪╝
 

[Brooke]

I_am_that_I_am

Member
Member # 1238

Member Rated:
   posted 12-09-2005 11:50 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was this the big bang ??
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific evidence indicates that the universe began around 12 billion years ago (8 billion-16 billion years ago) from a giant explosion called the big bang. In fact, before the big bang, the universe as we know it today did not exist - no planets or stars, no life of any kind, no atoms, no time. Before the big bang, all subatomic particles and all the energy of the universe were "locked up" in a point-source of infinite mass called a singularity.

The big bang came as a result of an explosion from that singularity. This singularity explosion has expanded since then, forming the universe as we now know it. In fact, the universe is still expanding, and scientists have debated what the end of time has in store for us.

Out of this big bang explosion was born mostly hydrogen and helium atoms with a scant amount of lithium, which in turn clumped together to form stars (there are billions in the Milky Way galaxy). It is in these nuclear fusion reactors, the stars, that all the other elements were born in a process called nucleosynthesis. Our own solar system is thought to have been formed when a large star exploded some 5 billion years ago, sending matter into space, some of which recollected to form our sun (mostly hydrogen and helium gas), the planets and their moons, and all the other components of the solar system (such as asteroids, meteors, comets, dust, etc.).




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

JOHN attributes this to JESUS(er..the CHRIST).Light from darkness a metaphore for good/evil ?? If so was the darkness Satan ?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another referance to CHRIST?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

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

Replenish

replenish
A verb
1 replenish, refill, fill_again

fill something that had previously been emptied; "refill my glass, please"
Category Tree:
change; alter; modify ╚fill; fill_up; make_full
╚replenish, refill, fill_again

notice how it's phrased here refering to fish/fowl..
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

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

nothing about relenishing fish/fowl, Who was here before ?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed. 1:31
Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. 2:7


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

I remember that while I was growing up, It used to be percieved that you either believed in the bible's creation story or in Evolution, but have always felt that there was/is
no reason they couldn't both be right 


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. 1:1-2:3

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

GEN1
In the begining God created the heavens and the earth.
2.now the earth was formless and empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep,and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

There may be alot wrong with GENISIS, but there's alot of good info also... GEN 1:2 is a powerful statment..the image I get from it runs along scientific beliefs today regarding the creation.. before earth was earth "formless,empty and lots of water ! Water ..H2o....hydrogen and oxygen..the buildingblocks of the universe known back then ! 

parables are abound.. for those with ears to hear and eye's to see...

--------------------
KNOW that as ye do unto the least of thy associates ye do
unto the GOD within THEE that is in the image of the God
without.
E.C.
 

[Brooke]

oscar

Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member   posted 12-12-2005 02:50 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, I haven't seen a discussion of the thing except in some paragraphs and gluing almost all Genesis account. This is based upon misunderstanding of the whole text. If you ever read about Jewish knowledge and Hebrew language in that text as it was understood centuries ago you wouldn't just repeat Christian dogmas. First of all you require urgently to read what is the meaning of "afternoon" and "morning" in Hebrew to understand why the creation started in the afternoon and not in the morning. Afternoon was chaos and morning was order. Hence creation started in entropy chaos and eventually became order "and it was good" as Onkelos translation mentions knowing the meaning of BOKER (morning) and EREV (afternoon). More than this the Creation didn't start in "first day" but in DAY ONE in cardinal number and yet the rest of the days do have ordinal sequence (second, third, etc) cos there was nothing, no space,nor time prior to that day "one". Vulgata translated better in Latin in Genesis 1:5 "Jactunque est vespere et mane, DIES UNUS". Day One, subtle thing overlooked in Jerusalem Bible. The logic of the text is an armony with Expansive Event like Big Bang as suggested in Hebrew (for the ones who have covered the Bible with dust and spider web and dare to write about something they ignore, Isaiah 48:13, compared with the SEVERAL USES OF THE WORD DAY "yohm" that could mean even thousands of years, Exodus 20:11, Genesis 1:1. Even Genesis 2:4 indicates a difference between days and "day".
More than this, there's a difference in Hebrew between "create" out of nothing and merely "form" or model out of something already existing. The Genesis account only mentions the "creation' of the earth with the rest of the cosmos while the "days" are not talking about real creation but preparation to support life on the planet. So all your arguments are based upon ignorance of the text. I'm sorry.
More than this, the day of creation depends on the POINT OF VIEW OF THE OBSERVER. The earth was not in the same pistion is now after so much time, so here we deal with SIMULTANEOUS TIMES. Do yourself a favor and read urgently someone who's physicist and theologists and knows Hebrew writing from Jerusalem: Gerald Schroeder, Ph. D, "Genesis and the Big Bang". While doing that draw a spot in a baloon or chewing gum before blowing it to understand what I'm talking about.
The formation of Sun and Moon was not creation, that was already implicit in Genesis 1:1. The word in Hebrew means Sun , Moon and stars were merely somehow visible from earth (perhaps if there was a dense canopy before "formation" of man). So again your analysis is wrong and so about light. The light in Genesis 1:3 existed before the splitting of light and darkness described in Genesis 1:4. Talmud recognized this centuries ago saying the light was so powerfl it was invisible to human eyes. I know you're thinking about Sun cos your mind thinks humans are the center of the universe and you thought Genesis may accomodate to your interpretation. WRONG AGAIN!
Science teaches us light in creation times was like GAMMA RAYS beyond human perception. Whe the thermic energy dropped to 3000 K degrees, the electrons could have estable orbits around hydrogen and helium nucleus and photons liberated from matter in universe (split is the term used by Torah). Light became visible and darkness appeared. That's why Isaiah 45:7 says in Hebrew the word 'hoshek' admitting THE REAL CREATION WAS NOT LIGHT BUT BLACK FIRE OR DARKNESS, a sort of energy like dark matter while light was merely "formed". Of course this was mentioned by the Bible before scientists knew about infrared, ultraviolet, sun light, gamma rays, etc. Read Job 38:5, 31 talking about STRINGS in Orion and Pleiads before scientist talked about superstrings or earth (26:7) hanging on "nothingness" or vaccum prior to the mention of the same words.
Something more you wanna add?

--------------------
inca
 

[Brooke]

oscar

Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member   posted 12-12-2005 03:17 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do. As I said earth was not in the same position in space as it is know and there are investigators who think it may had another rotation and movement around the Sun...even the shape of an egg. Really nobody knows even the "day" or "year" of the proto-earth.
www.expanding-earth.org

So, you have to focus on the events mentioned in that "then" according to Creator's point of view and not current days. Read the book I'm mentioning to enlight your path of understanding.

Also, when you say: In verse 11, God "let the earth bring forth" the plants. Now he has the earth "bring forth" the animals as well. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Or :God commands us to "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living thing that moveth upon the earth." 1:28
All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas -- all were strict vegetarians, as they were created by God. 1:30
"God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." He purposefully designed a system that ensures the suffering and death of all his creatures, parasite and host, predator and prey. 1:31
In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed. 1:31
Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. 2:7

Well, there's too much to say against your understanding. The geological strata proves swarms of different kind of life appear literally on earth. If you believe in evolution, clap-clap-clap. Bravo! Perhaps you ought to open a new tread about why you think evolution is science and I will respond with detail using scientific arguments and not the Bible as I'm quoting here. Please do it and let's see how deep the rabbit goes...
Meanwhile the text mentions proliferation of life and that's exactly what the text says. No contradiction. About human fantastic evolution, I'm afraid studies of genetic made by Rebecca Cann and others have reduced those incredible lying dates to merely thousands (between 22.000 and 180.000 and even so depending on how many partners had that African "Eve" and based upon uniformitarianism dogma which relies on much speculation I'm afraid to add).
About Noah's Deluge and animals, it's incredible naïve to believe in those days all millions of species were alive. That doesn't happen even with dogs in recent times!!!!!! The text mentions genes and not the modern clasification os species, genres, etc. Wrong again and again and again. If you wanna know how many "original" basic species could Adam and Noah count and name that could "form" millions of modern species, do your homework and will be amazed. I have done it and I tell you Noah didn't even need to set too many big animals in the ark (not to mention the size of the ark which was not like a ship but had the same dimensions 6 x 1 used in modern ships neither mammals like dolphins or whales surviving out of the water or insects that survived catastrophe easily, etc). I could give you a kilometric answer but I don't have the time or energy to educate you better or do homework. It's evident you haven't studied the thing deeper and your arguments are superficial.
Also you have to understand Bible is not a book of paleonthology so many references are done in specific metaphoric language. You ignore this and want to put a modern language to discredit the thing. It's an awful error. I could say the same thing even in science if I say is wrong when it' said the astronauts ascended to space or talking about sunset or sunrise when the Sun is not really moving. Your whole argument is wacko and ignorant to square degree. Lemme entretain you:
www.creationism.org/fruitful.jpg
www.creationism.org/noah_ark.jpg
www.creationism.org/csshs/v06n2p04.htm
www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html
http://custance.org/old/time/5ch1.html
www.ao.net/~fmoeller/gen10.htm
http://custance.org/Library/Volume1/Part_II/Chapter3.html
www.bibledecoded.com/understanding1.html
When and IF you ever finish reading, come to daddy and do your post and I will be eager to answer your (whatever) point of view...

--------------------
inca
 

[Brooke]

oscar

Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member   posted 12-12-2005 03:26 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, when you wrote "Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. 2:7". Well, here we're not debating what Creationist think or not but what the Bible says. The Bible doesn't mention the creation (barah) of Adam and Eve and even in translations we read the word "form" or "model" in Genesis 1:26; 2:7, 18, 19, 22 so Sitchin is closer to the truth in that sense. The text doesn't say if the "forming" (out of something already existing) was instantaneous or not, the procedure suggest a laboratory sort of procedure using marrow of wife-sister, cloning or endogamic incest. The Bible even mentions mud which is something already known helped the RNA.
If you believe life really took millions of years I have to say all measures made of "time" have no real truth but speculation and it's another theory, not a scientific fact. If that is repeated million times "it's a fact, it's a fact" it's easier to believe that lie. So, please, I BEG YOU to open a tread about why you believe in evolution and be prepared cos I'm gonna hammer you tooth and nail to kingdom comes....in behalf of science, indeed.

--------------------
inca
 

[Brooke]

Brooke

Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
   posted 12-12-2005 11:21 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Oscar,

Well, if there is no "discussion" in the text, that's because you weren't around to discuss it. It's been sitting there for a week, waiting for you to get started. As for pasting Genesis, fer sure, where else would you like to get started? It's the most important book in the Bible!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than this, there's a difference in Hebrew between "create" out of nothing and merely "form" or model out of something already existing. The Genesis account only mentions the "creation' of the earth with the rest of the cosmos while the "days" are not talking about real creation but preparation to support life on the planet. So all your arguments are based upon ignorance of the text. I'm sorry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry yourself!
There's not even anything REMOTELY in the Genesis texts that corresponds with how we believe the universe was created, not to mention how old it is. God "speaks" things into being, that isn't science, that's pure mythology! And if that's your idea of how science is translated into the creation mythos, then this discussion is finished before it begins. That's not science, it's not even CLOSE to how the universe was actually formed, and "days" do not imply billions of years no matter how you try and fudge the facts.

Why are you even arguing any of this in the first place?

The Jews did not and COULD NOT have known how the universe was created. It's a mythology, no different than the ones of the Egyptians, Greeks or Zorastrians.

If you genuinely believe that they did know, it also means that you don't know science, and no amount of condescension from you can cover up the fact.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The formation of Sun and Moon was not creation, that was already implicit in Genesis 1:1. The word in Hebrew means Sun , Moon and stars were merely somehow visible from earth (perhaps if there was a dense canopy before "formation" of man). So again your analysis is wrong and so about light. The light in Genesis 1:3 existed before the splitting of light and darkness described in Genesis 1:4. Talmud recognized this centuries ago saying the light was so powerfl it was invisible to human eyes. I know you're thinking about Sun cos your mind thinks humans are the center of the universe and you thought Genesis may accomodate to your interpretation. WRONG AGAIN!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said that, the Bible says that.
I support the traditional view, which is that the earth wasn't even made till billions of years after the creation of the universe, again something not even alluded to in the Bible.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science teaches us light in creation times was like GAMMA RAYS beyond human perception. Whe the thermic energy dropped to 3000 K degrees, the electrons could have estable orbits around hydrogen and helium nucleus and photons liberated from matter in universe (split is the term used by Torah). Light became visible and darkness appeared. That's why Isaiah 45:7 says in Hebrew the word 'hoshek' admitting THE REAL CREATION WAS NOT LIGHT BUT BLACK FIRE OR DARKNESS, a sort of energy like dark matter while light was merely "formed". Of course this was mentioned by the Bible before scientists knew about infrared, ultraviolet, sun light, gamma rays, etc. Read Job 38:5, 31 talking about STRINGS in Orion and Pleiads before scientist talked about superstrings or earth (26:7) hanging on "nothingness" or vaccum prior to the mention of the same words.
Something more you wanna add?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, you're trying to impress science upon sections of the Bible where it isn't even there. The Bible doesn't say any of that stuff. Only, "And God said let there be light."

There's no science in the Bible. It's a simple fact. The only way you can even suggest that there Is is to impress all these modern THEORIES upon what is basically a work of POETRY.

Maybe this was a bad idea. I get the idea you're one of these people who's faith has to interfere with every single thing they read, to the point that even their logic is affected. Do you even try to explain any of the statements in the Bible, or else just explain them away? I can only imagine how you would explain how Eve was supposed to have been formed from Adam's rib or how water was supposed to have covered the whole world.

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
 

[Brooke]

Brooke

Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
   posted 12-12-2005 11:26 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I_am_that_I_am, nice try attempting to align science and the Bible together. I'm still not buying any of it, but I give you points for trying.

Scientifically, there is evidence that some of these things did happen, however, there is NO evidence that INTELLIGENT DESIGN was responsible for any of them.

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
 

[Brooke]

Brooke

Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
   posted 12-12-2005 11:42 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Noah's Deluge and animals, it's incredible naïve to believe in those days all millions of species were alive. That doesn't happen even with dogs in recent times!!!!!! The text mentions genes and not the modern clasification os species, genres, etc. Wrong again and again and again. If you wanna know how many "original" basic species could Adam and Noah count and name that could "form" millions of modern species, do your homework and will be amazed. I have done it and I tell you Noah didn't even need to set too many big animals in the ark (not to mention the size of the ark which was not like a ship but had the same dimensions 6 x 1 used in modern ships neither mammals like dolphins or whales surviving out of the water or insects that survived catastrophe easily, etc). I could give you a kilometric answer but I don't have the time or energy to educate you better or do homework. It's evident you haven't studied the thing deeper and your arguments are superficial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's pretty obvious to me that you use a lot of condescension to cover up for what amounts to a lot of crappy arguments!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text doesn't mention genes!
The text mentions MODERN ANIMALS brought into the ark in pairs, and afterwards the ENTIRE WORLD is supposed to be drowned in a WORLDWIDE FLOOD!!

The ark was supposed to be six or seven hundred feet long and it fit all the animals in the world in it??

A boat that big made entirely of wood?? It would have sprung millions of leaks!

Any good scientist will tell you that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood! If water actually did cover the whole of the earth, it would have destroyed all life upon it and changed the atmosphere forever. A fig tree somehow survived the flood? Mt. Everest was even covered up??

I like the way you deal with a lot of the evidence against all the most basic assertions of the Bible: you ignore them!

What a load of crap!

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
 

[Brooke]

Brooke

Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
   posted 12-12-2005 11:44 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed. 1:31
Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. 2:7

Well, there's too much to say against your understanding. The geological strata proves swarms of different kind of life appear literally on earth. If you believe in evolution, clap-clap-clap. Bravo! Perhaps you ought to open a new tread about why you think evolution is science and I will respond with detail using scientific arguments and not the Bible as I'm quoting here. Please do it and let's see how deep the rabbit goes...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, so you believe that people came about instantaneously on the earth, arising from the dust?

And you think that a man arising, fully formed, is somehow more plausible than a mane evolving from apes?

There's EVIDENCE, Oscar, that people actually evolved from apes for MILLIONS OF YEARS. It's been my experience that Christian fundamentalists don't even want to look at it simply because they don't want to be associated with apes. Well, you can ignore it all you want, but doing it isn't very scientific.

AND!

Unless you believe like Volitzer does that aliens somehow tampered with our DNA, there isn't any better explanation.

[ 12-12-2005, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Brooke ]

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
 

[Brooke]

Brooke

Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
   posted 12-13-2005 12:05 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also you have to understand Bible is not a book of paleonthology so many references are done in specific metaphoric language. You ignore this and want to put a modern language to discredit the thing. It's an awful error. I could say the same thing even in science if I say is wrong when it' said the astronauts ascended to space or talking about sunset or sunrise when the Sun is not really moving. Your whole argument is wacko and ignorant to square degree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny, I ecnountered almost that exact same logic while I was visiting some creationist websites, trying to figure out their arguments. Gives a lot of wiggle room, doesn't it?

The reason why it doesn't work is because you actually can't align one with the other.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text doesn't say if the "forming" (out of something already existing) was instantaneous or not, the procedure suggest a laboratory sort of procedure using marrow of wife-sister, cloning or endogamic incest. The Bible even mentions mud which is something already known helped the RNA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It reads like this Oscar:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:7 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You really have to "reach" to get any science out of this. It's not science, it's mythology, like Prometheus forming the first people out of clay in Greek mythology. Maybe Prometheus is even where it came from.

Anyway, which Jewish prophet was supposed to have told everyone how human beings were formed?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you believe life really took millions of years I have to say all measures made of "time" have no real truth but speculation and it's another theory, not a scientific fact. If that is repeated million times "it's a fact, it's a fact" it's easier to believe that lie. So, please, I BEG YOU to open a tread about why you believe in evolution and be prepared cos I'm gonna hammer you tooth and nail to kingdom comes....in behalf of science, indeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're certainly welcome to discuss evolution here, but I'm not going to open a new thread on it right now. As for "hammering me tooth and nail until kingdom comes" on it, well, you may be able to pick out a few inconsistencies here and there on it, but basicallu it's a sound theory.

(I say "theory" because science always tries to leave room for other possibilities).

However, if your alternative is 2:7 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. I'm afraid I'll be a bit hard to convince.

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
 

[Brooke]

Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 12-13-2005 06:37 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
warning of topic,

this one is for you Oscar,
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/16597_Noahsark.html

--------------------
“Ad initio, alea iacta est.”
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
it's Later Than You Think
 

[Brooke]

oscar

Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member   posted 12-13-2005 08:06 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke: I don't care what you think or not is remote in the text. When you wrote "There's not even anything REMOTELY in the Genesis texts that corresponds with how we believe the universe was created, not to mention how old it is. God "speaks" things into being, that isn't science, that's pure mythology! And if that's your idea of how science is translated into the creation mythos, then this discussion is finished before it begins. That's not science, it's not even CLOSE to how the universe was actually formed, and "days" do not imply billions of years no matter how you try and fudge the facts." I'm quoting Hebrew words you didn't even know. I was specific using knowledge written by Maimonides and others centuries ago. You're depending on your own interpretation quoting from Christians. I said inform yourself better. I said the Bible is not a scientific book and yet what is mentioned is scientific. I'm quoting data for the readers to read, you write your opinion without even knowing Hebrew words. Pathetic! It's not needed to paste ALL THE TEXT, just write specific part to help us understand your point of view step by step.
The Bible doesn't say what you think is saying in "traditional" way. The very Genesis 1:1 says "in the beginning heaven and earth was created" . All possible time -including millions of years- are including in that "beginning" which is an echo of the Big Bang, a term invented by people like Fred Hoyle who were using it as mythology. I quoted Job which mentions earth hangs on "nothing" which is the same thing scientists say now while other civilizations believed earth was upon elephants, turtles, etc. It seems you ALSO ignore comparative mythology.

--------------------
inca
 

[Brooke]

oscar

Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member   posted 12-13-2005 08:37 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientist say the elements for the construction of the universe came in the moment of Big Bang. The scientist can't calculate exactly that event prior to Big Bang close to 0 moment. The scientific mythology talks even about a "soup" of elements in tiny singularity which is the Hebrew knowledge of super black hole in a "mustard seed". This I am sharing not for you, of course, but to anyone who wants to research deeper. I can't be blame if you read only a part of the text and think the Bible doesn't say other things. When you wrote "Sure, you're trying to impress science upon sections of the Bible where it isn't even there. The Bible doesn't say any of that stuff. Only, "And God said let there be light." I recomend you TO READ THE TEXT I'M QUOTING IN ISAIAH AND SEARCH THE MEANING OF THE HEBREW WORD MEANING BLACK FIRE. Not "only" what you think was written. Also be aware that was Jewish mysticism known by them and not stupid ignorant Christians. I specifically showed you the text to read and it seems you lack that skill as well. In fact in Genesis it says "let there be" and not "create" which is additional evidence of what I said. I don't wanna impress but if my saying upset you is due to the fact I'm impressing you and that won't be admitted by you. Hehehehe!
I mentioned Job too and the translation "strings" or ropes or hooks available in many translations. It's something known by the people who have read the whole Bible from Genesis to Apocalipsis and not people who have read few chapters in Genesis once in their lives and think they know for sure.

Brooke, it seems the one who is trying to teach faith in evolution here is you as religious person. I'm not even talking about God or my faith. I'm discussing the Bible cos that the theme too but I could also mention Brahma's Big Day and Night which is very similar to "modern" concept of Big Bang and Big Crunch or I could write about Chinese myths about dwarfs and "eggs" a term used in modern "science". So, let me say you haven't developed telepatic habilities to ay for sure you know my faith cos I haven't written about that. Even when you make fun of the I Am What I Am youy're quoting from a poor translation of "eyeh asher eyeh" that in no case was I Am (that's "ani hu" in case you wanna know and is not present in the text of the revelation of God's name).
The repetition "is a fact is a fact is a fact" doesn't make it a fact but a clear and subjective feeling about what you want it to be. I quoted genetic specialist Rebecca Cann and I could show more but it seems you're not providing enough data.
The text in Hebrew doesn't mention "modern" clasification of animals. It's just a word written BEFORE SCIENTISTS DID THE MODERN CLASSIFICATION.If you can't see that, you're not ignorant (which is not a sin anyway), you are imbecil!!! The text mentions "kind".
I suppose there are not too many philosophers and inventors in human female because much % of women are interested in other things. Not lack of intelligence but other use of brain hemisphere. Is happening with you. I told you, if you wanna open a tread about evolution, go ahead and make my day. This is not the isssue so don't beat around the bush. In the text it never says Noah had to put ALL THE ANIMALS OF THE PLANET. That is absurd and the text doesn't say that unless I'm taking with someone who can only read a fistful of translations ignoring Hebrew. Two or 7 of a "kind" indicates a specification known by Noah and so I said do your homework and you will know how many mammals , birds , reptiles, etc, were needed to form all possible species on earth. I won't do it. You just repeated the same stupidity you wrote before.
You wrote:
There's no science in the Bible. It's a simple fact. The only way you can even suggest that there Is is to impress all these modern THEORIES upon what is basically a work of POETRY. I let the readers judge what is fact or not and who knows or not what is said. Again you're repeating "it's a fact, it's a fact, it's a fact". By the way, I don't imagine the things like Creationist. Yet there are things they know and people ignore. I have worked in medical area. Did you know there's fiber tissue called "periostium" covering the ribs that could grow again like lizard's tail if removed? Do you know the importance of using marrow in transplant and how it leads to incest genetic endogamy? In case anyone -but Brooke- wants to read before critizing what is ignored, allow yourself reading these:

--------------------
inca