1. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    13 Jul '21 03:13
    @bigdogg said
    So, how is it that we have to be careful pointing you to other people, but you get to rely on other people from 2000+ years ago?

    At least we can go talk to our people, and our people provide some evidence.
    So you feel comfortable telling people what they should believe.

    Believe what you want to believe, that is great.

    Tell people what to believe, that is not ok.
  2. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    14 Jul '21 15:201 edit
    @Suzianne


    Science had not even advanced to infancy stage yet. 'Godidit' was a perfectly adequate explanation back then. Man was simply not equipped to understand cosmology at this point.


    Some argue that the Bible informed the world of things of the physical world which it took centuries for scientific minds to discover. Science had to "catch up" to what the Bible said way beforehand!

    It is an argument that you cannot easily dismiss imo.
    Would you like some examples?

    ( I only want to do the work if you're interested)
  3. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    15 Jul '21 12:122 edits
    @moonbus said
    What I meant by referencing the Scopes trial was that some county or other in America tries, every year it seems, to pass legislation to get the Book of Genesis taught in the public schools as an alternative scientific explanation, under new names again and again.

    Creation ex nihilo is not subject to testing or evidence or contra-evidence. Creationism/Intelligent D ...[text shortened]... cience at all. It makes religion look silly to try to pass it off as any sort of explanation.
    I wonder why you say Intelligent Design is not good science.

    Would you say Forensic Criminology is not a good science?
    That is the detection of intelligent agency as relates to possible murders.

    Would you say Archeology is not a good science?
    That is the detection if intelligent agency applied to very old artifacts found.

    Would you say the skill of detecting Insurance Fraud has been committed in the burning down of some building is not a good science?
  4. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    15 Jul '21 12:141 edit
    moonbase,

    I don't think you would say detection of intelligent design in any of these fields is not legitimately scientific. What I think is happening is that there are theological or philosophical implications to Intelligent Design when applied to biology which you are alarmed by. You don't want to go where the evidence might lead you IF intelligent design is detected.

    For the reasons of not wanting to accept possible implications of design you vouch to nip it in the bud declaring that Intelligent Design is not even good science. You probably have already determined a Creating God is out of the picture completely. So anything with an implication possibly pointing in that direction must be pronounced illegitimate.

    Is SETI - the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence not even good science?

    If I ruled out a prior that no other minds exist than human minds, could I refuse the implications of finding signals that suggest intelligence under the excuse that such activity is not good science?
  5. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    15 Jul '21 12:251 edit
    Creation ex nihilo is not subject to testing or evidence or contra-evidence.


    It certainly is not repeatable in some laboratory.

    Now that the entire material of the universe was super compressed once into a spot as a "singularity" maybe the size of a dot, is this something we can repeat in a laboratory?

    The both ex nihilo and Big Bang theory are kind of beliefs untestable aren't they?

    Does the Big Bang theory enjoy some logical higher ground that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" does not?
  6. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    16 Jul '21 21:581 edit
    @Eladar

    My question is according to the text, how long would it take for the light to appear?


    I am taking this a piece at a time. First thing I notice is that it does not say strictly that God created light. It just says "Let there be light". This I take to mean that from someone's standpoint light was in existence yet was HINDERED from appearing.

    The condition of the earth suggests judgment had occurred previous to the obscuring of light. So a recovery of a situation was needed that darkness would not hinder light from shinning.

    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, But the earth became waste and emptiness, and DARKNESS was on the face of the surface of the deep. [b](vs 1,2 RcV)

    As to how long would it take light to appear? If this is being unveiled to a seer so that he is witnessing the event in some form, I suppose as soon as God spoke the light would appear.


    Did the light simply appear or did God create the Sun and then the light needed to travel from the Sun to the earth?


    I think the sun was already created. The seer heard of God's speaking and virtually at the same time he saw sun light appear. Yet it was in a indistinct and diffuse state so that he did not YET see the "light holders" which appear to him on the fourth day.

    The word there is different. You have light in verse 3.
    You have light-bearers on the fourth day in verse 14.


    The same question about the light from the stars. If we [assume] the light from the stars was God's creation, how could that light be seen since it takes so long for the light generated by the stars to get here?


    As I said, the sun light first was seen but no definite holder of the source was seen.
    "And God said, Let there be light".

    The holder or bearer of the sunlight was distinctly made or made to appear on the fourth day along with the other distinct heavenly hosts of light-bearers.

    "And God said, Let there be light-bearers in the expanse of heaven to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; And let them be light-bearers in the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth; and it was so."

    Light is one word in the Hebrew.
    Light-bearers is another word in the Hebrew.

    Verse 16 says strictly that God MADE [not CREATED] the two great light-bearers of the sun, the moon, and the stars.
  7. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    16 Jul '21 22:001 edit
    "And God MADE the two great light-bearers to rule the day and the lesser light-bearer to rule the night, and the stars."

    I take this to mean the He caused them to appear.
    Zechariah 12:1 has creation in a sequence that first God stretched forth the heavens before He laid the foundation of the earth.

    "The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah,
    who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him." (Zech 12:1)


    Here the sequence is God expanding and stretching the universe first and then laying the foundation of the planet earth. Lastly forming the spirit within man on the earth that man may contact God with his human spirit.


    Obviously if we assume a creation, not only were the stars created, but so were the light rays that would reach the earth from that moment and all the light since.


    I think the stars and the sun and the moon were already there but the seer was not caused to SEE them. First on the first day a indistinct LIGHT was seen. Then on the fourth day LIGHT-BEARERS were more clearly seen as the source.

    He made them to appear on the fourth day. I don't think it means God created them on the fourth day. That He set them in the heavens is the same as generally He made them to appear to the seer.

    " . . . the greater light-bearer to rule the day and the lesser light-bearer to to rule the night, and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heaven to giv light on the earth and to rule over the day and over the night and to separate the light from the darkness, and God saw that it was good.

    And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day." (vs.16-19)
  8. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    16 Jul '21 22:01

    Secondary question, why would we want to apply the assumption that miracles cannot happen if we are assuming that the miracle did occur?


    I know you asked this of another person.
    The verse 1 is supernatural - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

    Time - the beginning
    Space - heavens
    Matter - earth

    all came about from nothing that existed other than the God and His will, purpose, and eternal power to bring about being and the existence of the universe.
    He transcended all the universe with all time, matter, energy, motion, space.

    And He established the laws of physics by which all creation should ever afterward operate unless for His own purposes He miraculously intervene.
  9. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    16 Jul '21 22:03
    @sonship

    So you believe that God created stars individually depending on how long it would take for that light to travel to earth, then after each creation at different times all that light hit the earth at the exact same time.

    I think simply creating all emitted light at the same.moment the stars were created is less tedious.
  10. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    16 Jul '21 22:092 edits
    @eladar said
    @sonship

    So you believe that God created stars individually depending on how long it would take for that light to travel to earth, then after each creation at different times all that light hit the earth at the exact same time.

    I think simply creating all emitted light at the same.moment the stars were created is less tedious.
    All I know is that in the beginning God created the universe.

    Now as God revealed in some way what He wanted to to some seer or prophet like Moses or perhaps Adam, he saw the definite light-bearers on a fourth day. On a first day the light that he saw was general and the SOURCE of it he could not see.
  11. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    16 Jul '21 22:23
    @sonship

    Could have been a cloudy day.
  12. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    16 Jul '21 22:41
    @Eladar

    Yes. It could have been a very cloudy and overcast day.

    Perhaps it would appear as if we were on the surface of the planet Venus.
  13. The Ghost Chamber
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    28594
    10 Aug '21 16:25
    @sonship said

    Some argue that the Bible informed the world of things of the physical world which it took centuries for scientific minds to discover. Science had to "catch up" to what the Bible said way beforehand!

    It is an argument that you cannot easily dismiss imo.
    Would you like some examples?

    ( I only want to do the work if you're interested)
    The Bible supports the primitive view of a flat Earth. (Examples available upon request).

    I don't think the Bible has much gravitas when it comes to teaching scientific minds.
  14. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    11 Aug '21 00:001 edit
    @Ghost-of-a-Duke

    The Bible speaks of "the paths of the sea".
    Who knew about such paths of the sea.

    The Bible speaks of the birds following paths as they migrate.
    I don't know how much it was known that birds follow paths on earth as they fly.

    The Bible spoke of the heavens being stretched out as a tent.
    This I think could be an indication of an ever expanding universe - stretching out
    more and more. If so who knew about that?

    Jesus speaks of a rapture event in which some are working in the day while others are sleeping at night. That indicates an understanding of part of the world being in day and the other part of it being in night - a spherical planet.

    The Bible speaks of the people in Jesus' time knowing how to read the sky and
    know what the weather would be like. I think without modern meteorology
    probably some of these skills have been lost to people.

    The book of Job speaks of the characteristics of certain domesticated animals. A lot of this knowledge is familiar more with zoologists and biologist then with common people.

    The Bible speaks of God hanging the earth on nothing. Today this makes sense to the modern man because we know the globe is suspended in space.

    I have heard also that Joshua's long day says both the sun stood still and the moon was indicative of a heliocentric earth.

    So I would say your concept of scientific naivete of the Scriptures is probably pre-mature and smugly exaggerated.

    In comparison, the Quran of Islam said shooting stars were missiles shot by allah at evil spirits. In comparison, the Quran taught that there was a water pool at the remote parts part of the earth earth where the sun literally rose out of.
  15. The Ghost Chamber
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    28594
    11 Aug '21 06:44
    @sonship said

    So I would say your concept of scientific naivete of the Scriptures is probably pre-mature and smugly exaggerated.

    In comparison, the Quran of Islam said shooting stars were missiles shot by allah at evil spirits. In comparison, the Quran taught that there was a water pool at the remote parts part of the earth earth where the sun literally rose out of.
    No, I stand by it. Nothing you said has any depth to it, anything scientifically profound.

    In the Bible we have angels standing on the 4 corners of the Earth and in Matthew 4:8, Jesus being able to see all the kingdoms of the Earth from a high mountain.

    Give me strength...
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree