T
tonyrey
Guest
An absurd distortion of Christianity which contravenes the forum rule of respect and merely reveals your ignorance and antipathy…
- Status
N
ngill09
Guest
- is not remotely part of the Big Bang theory.
- Is inaccurate, it is more accurate to say that the fabric of spacetime expanded. But I’m quite sure this stuff is way over your head.
N
ngill09
Guest
I wonder what version of the Bible you’re reading, because it seems to have left out an important part.
From NIV
Genesis 1 said:
So we have water before light on Day 1.
On Day 2, God creates the mythical “firmament” - a dome separating the water in the sky from the water below. This comes from the ancient idea that what we now call outer space was filled with water. This is also referred to when God opens the “windows of heaven” to let in the water during the flood of Noah.
On Day 3, God creates “vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees”
On Day 4, God creates the sun, moon, and stars.
Wait - what?
This is supposed to be an accurate account of the order of events? See if you can find a quote from a scientist saying that water existed before light, or that plants existed before the sun, moon, and stars.
M
meinfinitist
Guest
Instead of calling me names,please explain the absurd distortion of facts, you claim.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ngill
**This is supposed to be an accurate account of the order of events? See if you can find a quote from a scientist saying that water existed before light, or that plants existed before the sun, moon, and stars. **
Go back three thousand years and see if you can find an account anywhere else, in mythologies, philosophies, or ancient science … that the universe was created, that life began in the sea, that it moved then to the air and the land, that man (the highest primate) was the last to be created (all stated in Genesis 1).
This roughly parallels a theory of evolution. Naturally, the details are not specifically correct, because the account was meant for a primitive people to understand, not the aficionados of modern science.
“Let there be light” is just a rough approximation of the Big Bang. But interestingly, hydrogen, the dominant element of water (H2O), is also the the dominant element in the universe;so in a metaphorical sense “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
**This is supposed to be an accurate account of the order of events? See if you can find a quote from a scientist saying that water existed before light, or that plants existed before the sun, moon, and stars. **
Go back three thousand years and see if you can find an account anywhere else, in mythologies, philosophies, or ancient science … that the universe was created, that life began in the sea, that it moved then to the air and the land, that man (the highest primate) was the last to be created (all stated in Genesis 1).
This roughly parallels a theory of evolution. Naturally, the details are not specifically correct, because the account was meant for a primitive people to understand, not the aficionados of modern science.
“Let there be light” is just a rough approximation of the Big Bang. But interestingly, hydrogen, the dominant element of water (H2O), is also the the dominant element in the universe;so in a metaphorical sense “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
The only problem with this being that hydrogen did not exist until about 100,000 years after the big bang. Prior to that mark, it was protons, photons, and electrons floating about.“Let there be light” is just a rough approximation of the Big Bang. But interestingly, hydrogen, the dominant element of water (H2O), is also the the dominant element in the universe;so in a metaphorical sense “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
N
ngill09
Guest
“The details aren’t specifically correct”? It says that plants are here before the sun! Would it have been that difficult to simply rearrange the ordering so that it was correct? Moreover, it also has the evolutionary order wrong: land animals (day 6) existed before birds (day 5), according to evolutionary theory.
The Hindu creation story, which predates the Biblical creation story, describes the following order of events.
Vishnu existed before the creation of space and time. Strangely, in their creation myth water also exists before everything else.
Brahma, his servant, then created the Heavens, then the Earth, then the sky.
The earth was bare, then Brahma created plants.
Then he created animals, insects, birds and fish.
That’s a pretty strained interpretation. “Hydrogen is a part of water, and hydrogen is now the most common element in the universe, therefore before the universe was created, God was hovering over water.”“Let there be light” is just a rough approximation of the Big Bang. But interestingly, hydrogen, the dominant element of water (H2O), is also the the dominant element in the universe;so in a metaphorical sense “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
That’s a pretty strained interpretation. "Hydrogen is a part of water, and hydrogen is now the most common element in the universe, therefore before the universe was created, God was hovering over water."
Yes, water being the most essential ingredient of life, it is natural that the the hovering Spirit was preparing the universe for the emergence of that element most essential to life.
By the way, where in ancient science is there even any suspicion that Creation emerged over graduated phases, life starting in the ocean and migrating to air and land?
Yes, water being the most essential ingredient of life, it is natural that the the hovering Spirit was preparing the universe for the emergence of that element most essential to life.
By the way, where in ancient science is there even any suspicion that Creation emerged over graduated phases, life starting in the ocean and migrating to air and land?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ngill
Vishnu existed before the creation of space and time. Strangely, in their creation myth water also exists before everything else.
Brahma, his servant, then created the Heavens, then the Earth, then the sky.
The earth was bare, then Brahma created plants.
Then he created animals, insects, birds and fish.
Not so. This is the correct process of creation according to one source for the Hindu creation story…
“How does Lord Brahma create? Some tell of how he grows lonely and splits himself in two to create male and female. Then he becomes one again and human beings are created. In the same way he creates all the other living things, from the great animals to the tiniest insects. Others say that everything comes from different parts of Lord Brahma’s body. All the different animals and all the people come from his mouth, arms, thighs and feet. Everything comes from one - Lord Brahma, who is part of the Supreme One - so everything is part of the Supreme One.”
innovationslearning.co.uk/subjects/re/information/creation/hindu_creation.htm
Vishnu existed before the creation of space and time. Strangely, in their creation myth water also exists before everything else.
Brahma, his servant, then created the Heavens, then the Earth, then the sky.
The earth was bare, then Brahma created plants.
Then he created animals, insects, birds and fish.
Not so. This is the correct process of creation according to one source for the Hindu creation story…
“How does Lord Brahma create? Some tell of how he grows lonely and splits himself in two to create male and female. Then he becomes one again and human beings are created. In the same way he creates all the other living things, from the great animals to the tiniest insects. Others say that everything comes from different parts of Lord Brahma’s body. All the different animals and all the people come from his mouth, arms, thighs and feet. Everything comes from one - Lord Brahma, who is part of the Supreme One - so everything is part of the Supreme One.”
innovationslearning.co.uk/subjects/re/information/creation/hindu_creation.htm
N
ngill09
Guest
You mean where else in ancient mythology do we have the incorrect order of events we find in Genesis 1? Why should I care? The order is wrong in several places.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ngill
**You mean where else in ancient mythology do we have the incorrect order of events we find in Genesis 1? Why should I care? The order is wrong in several places. **
Yet ancient science does not even suggest an order.
**You mean where else in ancient mythology do we have the incorrect order of events we find in Genesis 1? Why should I care? The order is wrong in several places. **
Yet ancient science does not even suggest an order.
N
ngill09
Guest
Who cares about ancient “science”? Are you implying that because people at the time didn’t have a clue about the history of the planet/universe, that that makes the Biblical account correct or particularly insightful?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ngill
**Who cares about ancient “science”? Are you implying that because people at the time didn’t have a clue about the history of the planet/universe, that that makes the Biblical account correct or particularly insightful? **
While not correct in some details, Genesis is particularly insightful, given the fact that science in those days didn’t have a clue as to whether the universe had a beginning, or whether the life forms were created in a certain order. Given the absence of science, I don’t see why it irks you so much that Genesis in some respects is close to being on target in ways that no other document of the day could claim.
**Who cares about ancient “science”? Are you implying that because people at the time didn’t have a clue about the history of the planet/universe, that that makes the Biblical account correct or particularly insightful? **
While not correct in some details, Genesis is particularly insightful, given the fact that science in those days didn’t have a clue as to whether the universe had a beginning, or whether the life forms were created in a certain order. Given the absence of science, I don’t see why it irks you so much that Genesis in some respects is close to being on target in ways that no other document of the day could claim.
N
ngill09
Guest
So you’ve backed off from “The Bible is absolutely true and the inspired word of the Creator of the Universe!” to “Well, it at least has an order of events?” The Hindu creation story I cited was at least as “insightful” as the Genesis creation account.
But you know what’s much more insightful? Modern science.
N
ngill09
Guest
Oh, and if you want ancient scientists who had vaguely accurate ideas about the history of life on earth, check out Anaximander, who proposed that life first formed in the oceans and later moved to land, and Empedocles, who formulated a rudimentary theory of natural selection and adaptation.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ngill
**So you’ve backed off from “The Bible is absolutely true and the inspired word of the Creator of the Universe!” to “Well, it at least has an order of events?” **
Where it concerns our salvation, the Bible is absolutely true. Where it does not concern our salvation, there may be inaccurate statements from a purely scientific point of view.
The Hindu creation story I cited was at least as “insightful” as the Genesis creation account.
Prove it.
**So you’ve backed off from “The Bible is absolutely true and the inspired word of the Creator of the Universe!” to “Well, it at least has an order of events?” **
Where it concerns our salvation, the Bible is absolutely true. Where it does not concern our salvation, there may be inaccurate statements from a purely scientific point of view.
The Hindu creation story I cited was at least as “insightful” as the Genesis creation account.
Prove it.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
This from Wikipedia:
The 3rd century Roman writer Censorinus reports:
** Anaximander of Miletus considered that from warmed up water and earth emerged either fish or entirely fishlike animals. Inside these animals, men took form and embryos were held prisoners until puberty; only then, after these animals burst open, could men and women come out, now able to feed themselves.**
So I guess you could say Anaximander had it all over Moses?
The 3rd century Roman writer Censorinus reports:
** Anaximander of Miletus considered that from warmed up water and earth emerged either fish or entirely fishlike animals. Inside these animals, men took form and embryos were held prisoners until puberty; only then, after these animals burst open, could men and women come out, now able to feed themselves.**
So I guess you could say Anaximander had it all over Moses?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Empedocles does not fare so well either in Wikipedia:
** Empedocles attempted to explain the separation of elements, the formation of earth and sea, of Sun and Moon, of atmosphere. He also dealt with the first origin of plants and animals, and with the physiology of humans. As the elements entered into combinations, there appeared strange results – heads without necks, arms without shoulders. Then as these fragmentary structures met, there were seen horned heads on human bodies, bodies of oxen with human heads, and figures of double sex. But most of these products of natural forces disappeared as suddenly as they arose; only in those rare cases where the parts were found to be adapted to each other, did the complex structures last. Thus the organic universe sprang from spontaneous aggregations, which suited each other as if this had been intended. Soon various influences reduced the creatures of double sex to a male and a female, and the world was replenished with organic life. It is possible to see this theory as an anticipation of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, although Empedocles was not trying to explain evolution.**
Did you get that? NOT trying to explain evolution!
** Empedocles attempted to explain the separation of elements, the formation of earth and sea, of Sun and Moon, of atmosphere. He also dealt with the first origin of plants and animals, and with the physiology of humans. As the elements entered into combinations, there appeared strange results – heads without necks, arms without shoulders. Then as these fragmentary structures met, there were seen horned heads on human bodies, bodies of oxen with human heads, and figures of double sex. But most of these products of natural forces disappeared as suddenly as they arose; only in those rare cases where the parts were found to be adapted to each other, did the complex structures last. Thus the organic universe sprang from spontaneous aggregations, which suited each other as if this had been intended. Soon various influences reduced the creatures of double sex to a male and a female, and the world was replenished with organic life. It is possible to see this theory as an anticipation of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, although Empedocles was not trying to explain evolution.**
Did you get that? NOT trying to explain evolution!
N
ngill09
Guest
Got it. Bible isn’t factually true when it comes to things that are verifiable.
And when did I ever say that these ancient “scientists” were correct? They just had ideas that are vaguely like what actually happened - that’s what you asked for. Of course they were wrong. So were the writers of the Bible. You should take a hint and stop looking for wisdom in the writings if primitive people.
You’re displaying a perfect example of moving the goalposts, by the way.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ngill
**You’re displaying a perfect example of moving the goalposts, by the way. **
You’re the one who said:
**So you’ve backed off from “The Bible is absolutely true and the inspired word of the Creator of the Universe!” to “Well, it at least has an order of events?” **
I never said the Bible is absolutely true in every respect. You’re the one who moved the goalpost.
**You’re displaying a perfect example of moving the goalposts, by the way. **
You’re the one who said:
**So you’ve backed off from “The Bible is absolutely true and the inspired word of the Creator of the Universe!” to “Well, it at least has an order of events?” **
I never said the Bible is absolutely true in every respect. You’re the one who moved the goalpost.
- Status