Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Implications

ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
When the implications of a fact are too scary to contemplate, people pretend the fact doesn't exist.

If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

Here s a short list of things whose implications are too scary for some to contemplate.

1. The author of Genesis knew that stars were not the only source of light in the early universe.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

This is frankly amazing in that all they had to go on was that it was dark when the sun went away and bright again when it appeared. To write a story where there was light WITHOUT the sun must have perplexed them. But they were writing what was true, not what they had made up. SO they had to follow the facts even if it surpassed their knowledge at the time.

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

3. The author of Genesis knew that some plants did not need sunlight to live.
Gen 1:11 - And God said, "Let the Earth bring forth Grass...."

This is truly amazing in that such plants live in very remote and inhospitable places, like inside hot springs and /or deep caves, and at the bottom of the ocean. How did he know? We now know that the first plants did not use photosynthesis. Coincidence that the author of Genesis was correct again?

4. The author of Genesis knew that the atmosphere of the Earth formed after its creation. He knew that there was no rain until the atmosphere formed.
Gen 2:5 - "....for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the Earth.....
Gen 2:6 - "But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."


How would the author of Genesis know this unless he was told? Why would a "primitive" man even think of the atmosphere as a thing separate from the earth, or that it affected weather? In all their questions about Genesis, you'll never hear an atheist ask about such things.

5. The author of Genesis knew that plants came first, then ocean animals, then land animals, and finally man, just as science has discovered.
Genesis 1

Would not a "primitive" man, making stuff up assume that God created everything basically at once? Is it AGAIN coincidence that he got the order of life's appearance on earth correct, even listing earlier species first? How would he know that fish predate earthworms? The list of things the author of Genesis "just happened" to get right is far more than can be explained by chance.

6. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth's crust contained millions of tons of water.
Gen 7:11 - ....the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of Heaven were opened.

For years atheists argued that there was not enough water on the Earth to make the flood story true. Now we find that there is more water in the Earth's crust than in all the Earth's oceans. How did the author of Genesis know this? If he was making the story up, why would he think of mentioning that the flood was aided by water that came OUT OF THE EARTH? Coincidence again?

7. The author of Genesis knew that originally there was only one gender.
Gen 2:18 - And the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Would not a made up story by a primitive man have God create men and women separately and at the same time? Yet we see that the primitive man is correct by science again. He knew that the second gender came out of the original gender, and was not created separately. Science has wrestled with the necessity of different gender sex for ages. Science has caught up with the Bible.

8. The author of Genesis knew that the universe began with a cataclysmic explosion of light.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

Of course, science illiterates do not know every form of EM radiation is light. Because they can only see a small spectrum of that light, they think that small spectrum is all that light is. UV rays, X-Rays, Gamma rays, radio waves, cosmic waves are all forms of "light". The primitive author of Genesis knew this, it took the rest of us 6,000 years to figure it out.

9. The author of Genesis knew that "Day" and "Night" did not need to be Sol-centric.
Gen 1:13 - And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Now that we have traveled (vicariously through space telescopes), to other solar systems, we know that day and night can refer to other stars and can have different lengths depending on the orbits of planets around those suns. So in Genesis we had days and nights before the sun was mentioned. Days and nights with a reference to other than our sun? Is that a primitive concept?

10. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth began with one land mass and one ocean.
Gen 1:9 - And God said, "Let the water under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear."

Amazing is it not? How would the author of Genesis know this? Was it a guess? The study of plate tectonics and geography only recently discovered this. Yet the primitive man knew about it. Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.

You will hear the more science-illiterate ones say that Genesis reads like a fairy tale. But that is because due to their ignorance, SCIENCE reads like a fairy tale to them.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 8:46:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
When the implications of a fact are too scary to contemplate, people pretend the fact doesn't exist.

If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

Here s a short list of things whose implications are too scary for some to contemplate.

1. The author of Genesis knew that stars were not the only source of light in the early universe.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

This is frankly amazing in that all they had to go on was that it was dark when the sun went away and bright again when it appeared. To write a story where there was light WITHOUT the sun must have perplexed them. But they were writing what was true, not what they had made up. SO they had to follow the facts even if it surpassed their knowledge at the time.

Why couldn"t they have identified light as a separate entity from the sun? In Genesis 1:16 ("God made two great lights"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."), so the sun was obviously not believed to be the only source of light (and were wrong about the "lesser light" being a light). People can see by starlight when the moon and sun are not visible, and they didn"t attribute the stars to being lights (which we know they are with today"s knowledge) that are far greater than our sun! (http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...)

And how exactly do you know that they wrote about what they knew and not what they made up? Is it unfathomable that one could imagine the presence of light without a visible light source?

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

How do you extrapolate that from the few words that were there? And how does the rest of the verse fit into this: ""and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."? The eight words that you have here do not at all describe a process.

3. The author of Genesis knew that some plants did not need sunlight to live.
Gen 1:11 - And God said, "Let the Earth bring forth Grass...."

This is truly amazing in that such plants live in very remote and inhospitable places, like inside hot springs and /or deep caves, and at the bottom of the ocean. How did he know? We now know that the first plants did not use photosynthesis. Coincidence that the author of Genesis was correct again?

"", the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

How are you getting that out of this passage? None of the plants listed here meet the criteria you are describing; your conclusion does not follow.

4. The author of Genesis knew that the atmosphere of the Earth formed after its creation. He knew that there was no rain until the atmosphere formed.
Gen 2:5 - "....for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the Earth.....
Gen 2:6 - "But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."


How would the author of Genesis know this unless he was told? Why would a "primitive" man even think of the atmosphere as a thing separate from the earth, or that it affected weather? In all their questions about Genesis, you'll never hear an atheist ask about such things.

What is easier for you to imagine: the Earth without an atmosphere or an atmosphere without the Earth? Plus, "mist" doesn"t allude to an atmosphere; if anything significantly more that imagining mist from like a waterfall, it would be evaporation. Even that is quite a stretch given the context.

5. The author of Genesis knew that plants came first, then ocean animals, then land animals, and finally man, just as science has discovered.
Genesis 1

Would not a "primitive" man, making stuff up assume that God created everything basically at once? Is it AGAIN coincidence that he got the order of life's appearance on earth correct, even listing earlier species first? How would he know that fish predate earthworms? The list of things the author of Genesis "just happened" to get right is far more than can be explained by chance.

Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Many failures, here:

(1) The Bible also says that winged fowls came before the creeping things. This is contrary to modern science.

(2) The Bible specifies whales, which are descendant from mammalian ancestors (according to modern science), so being described as created before the land animals rails against modern science.

(3) Even if the authors did describe everything in the correct order, what other order to you think would make more sense in an intuitive way? Plants generally constitute the land and would not appear to feed on anything (thus being foundational), so that"s an obvious first. I don"t see how the sea/land animal order is more intuitive, either way.

...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 8:48:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
"

6. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth's crust contained millions of tons of water.
Gen 7:11 - ....the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of Heaven were opened.

For years atheists argued that there was not enough water on the Earth to make the flood story true. Now we find that there is more water in the Earth's crust than in all the Earth's oceans. How did the author of Genesis know this? If he was making the story up, why would he think of mentioning that the flood was aided by water that came OUT OF THE EARTH? Coincidence again?

Firstly, your conclusion doesn"t follow the passage; how exactly is that indicated? Secondly, the "ocean" is not in a form that resembles a fountain. Thirdly, there are natural phenomenon (i.e. geysers) that would appear more powerful than the rain, giving the impression of more water. Why would someone not attribute these forces as the factor to a grand flood, perhaps even believing that rain came about from the falling water from these things?

7. The author of Genesis knew that originally there was only one gender.
Gen 2:18 - And the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Would not a made up story by a primitive man have God create men and women separately and at the same time? Yet we see that the primitive man is correct by science again. He knew that the second gender came out of the original gender, and was not created separately. Science has wrestled with the necessity of different gender sex for ages. Science has caught up with the Bible.

No, there was originally no such thing as gender; the notion of genders are dependent on the existent, distinguishable differences to be define. And would it be plausible to write it that way to establish men as superior to women (which is in fact what this very chapter of the Bible does)?

8. The author of Genesis knew that the universe began with a cataclysmic explosion of light.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

Of course, science illiterates do not know every form of EM radiation is light. Because they can only see a small spectrum of that light, they think that small spectrum is all that light is. UV rays, X-Rays, Gamma rays, radio waves, cosmic waves are all forms of "light". The primitive author of Genesis knew this, it took the rest of us 6,000 years to figure it out.

Demonstrate that, by "light", that this is what the author meant. It is much more plausible to assume they were referring to visible light, especially considering the very next passage: "4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." Also, you conclusion misrepresents the scientific theory; it was not actually an "explosion", nor was that deem to be the absolute beginning of all matter and energy - it is the effective beginning of our observable universe.

9. The author of Genesis knew that "Day" and "Night" did not need to be Sol-centric.
Gen 1:13 - And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Now that we have traveled (vicariously through space telescopes), to other solar systems, we know that day and night can refer to other stars and can have different lengths depending on the orbits of planets around those suns. So in Genesis we had days and nights before the sun was mentioned. Days and nights with a reference to other than our sun? Is that a primitive concept?

I can't make sense of this one: how does this conclusion follow from this passage?

10. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth began with one land mass and one ocean.
Gen 1:9 - And God said, "Let the water under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear."

Amazing is it not? How would the author of Genesis know this? Was it a guess? The study of plate tectonics and geography only recently discovered this. Yet the primitive man knew about it.

Demonstrate that by "dry land" that the author necessarily and specifically meant it as a Pangea and not as the lands, in general. And "let the water gather in one place" may refer to the water being gathered to form the oceans that the land was formed in, because the earth was still without form prior to this.

Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.

I don't find the implications to be scary, and I will be very skeptical of your conclusions since there's nothing but rationalizations provided as support.

You will hear the more science-illiterate ones say that Genesis reads like a fairy tale. But that is because due to their ignorance, SCIENCE reads like a fairy tale to them.

Your conclusions rely on imaginative interpretation, and that is the only way that they can be extrapolated from the passages of the Bible. None of the specific details you describe can be drawn from the Bible without having that knowledge beforehand, which means that it cannot be extracted from the passages, themselves.
oneteacher
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 8:53:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
When the implications of a fact are too scary to contemplate, people pretend the fact doesn't exist.

If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

Here s a short list of things whose implications are too scary for some to contemplate.

1. The author of Genesis knew that stars were not the only source of light in the early universe.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

This is frankly amazing in that all they had to go on was that it was dark when the sun went away and bright again when it appeared. To write a story where there was light WITHOUT the sun must have perplexed them. But they were writing what was true, not what they had made up. SO they had to follow the facts even if it surpassed their knowledge at the time.

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

3. The author of Genesis knew that some plants did not need sunlight to live.
Gen 1:11 - And God said, "Let the Earth bring forth Grass...."

This is truly amazing in that such plants live in very remote and inhospitable places, like inside hot springs and /or deep caves, and at the bottom of the ocean. How did he know? We now know that the first plants did not use photosynthesis. Coincidence that the author of Genesis was correct again?

4. The author of Genesis knew that the atmosphere of the Earth formed after its creation. He knew that there was no rain until the atmosphere formed.
Gen 2:5 - "....for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the Earth.....
Gen 2:6 - "But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."


How would the author of Genesis know this unless he was told? Why would a "primitive" man even think of the atmosphere as a thing separate from the earth, or that it affected weather? In all their questions about Genesis, you'll never hear an atheist ask about such things.

5. The author of Genesis knew that plants came first, then ocean animals, then land animals, and finally man, just as science has discovered.
Genesis 1

Would not a "primitive" man, making stuff up assume that God created everything basically at once? Is it AGAIN coincidence that he got the order of life's appearance on earth correct, even listing earlier species first? How would he know that fish predate earthworms? The list of things the author of Genesis "just happened" to get right is far more than can be explained by chance.

6. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth's crust contained millions of tons of water.
Gen 7:11 - ....the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of Heaven were opened.

For years atheists argued that there was not enough water on the Earth to make the flood story true. Now we find that there is more water in the Earth's crust than in all the Earth's oceans. How did the author of Genesis know this? If he was making the story up, why would he think of mentioning that the flood was aided by water that came OUT OF THE EARTH? Coincidence again?

7. The author of Genesis knew that originally there was only one gender.
Gen 2:18 - And the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Would not a made up story by a primitive man have God create men and women separately and at the same time? Yet we see that the primitive man is correct by science again. He knew that the second gender came out of the original gender, and was not created separately. Science has wrestled with the necessity of different gender sex for ages. Science has caught up with the Bible.

8. The author of Genesis knew that the universe began with a cataclysmic explosion of light.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

Of course, science illiterates do not know every form of EM radiation is light. Because they can only see a small spectrum of that light, they think that small spectrum is all that light is. UV rays, X-Rays, Gamma rays, radio waves, cosmic waves are all forms of "light". The primitive author of Genesis knew this, it took the rest of us 6,000 years to figure it out.

9. The author of Genesis knew that "Day" and "Night" did not need to be Sol-centric.
Gen 1:13 - And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Now that we have traveled (vicariously through space telescopes), to other solar systems, we know that day and night can refer to other stars and can have different lengths depending on the orbits of planets around those suns. So in Genesis we had days and nights before the sun was mentioned. Days and nights with a reference to other than our sun? Is that a primitive concept?

10. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth began with one land mass and one ocean.
Gen 1:9 - And God said, "Let the water under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear."

Amazing is it not? How would the author of Genesis know this? Was it a guess? The study of plate tectonics and geography only recently discovered this. Yet the primitive man knew about it. Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.

You will hear the more science-illiterate ones say that Genesis reads like a fairy tale. But that is because due to their ignorance, SCIENCE reads like a fairy tale to them. : :

The source that all written and spoken words come from have baffled religious people and scientists alike. All they had to do was listen to the voice of the Lord and obey his commandments and all their confusion would go away.

Deuteronomy 28:
1: And if you obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.
2: And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the LORD your God.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 12:29:24 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

A survey of mythology shows that ancient people came up with all manner of fanciful ideas. Here's a link to some of them: [http://listverse.com...]

If you look for cherry-picked parallels to scientific theories of cosmogenesis, you can find them in many myths. On the other hand, none stand out as being accurately predictive of anything specific and significant in science.
oneteacher
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 12:42:11 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 12:29:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

A survey of mythology shows that ancient people came up with all manner of fanciful ideas. Here's a link to some of them: [http://listverse.com...]

If you look for cherry-picked parallels to scientific theories of cosmogenesis, you can find them in many myths. On the other hand, none stand out as being accurately predictive of anything specific and significant in science. : :

Science is confusing more people today than religion did starting thousands of years ago. Because of science, there are many more objects to observe that will deceive an observer. The only way to the knowledge of how we're created is to listen to the Voice of God and obey His commandments.

I have listened to a few physicists who are very close to how we're created but they don't know for sure. They are only guessing based on their studies of visible objects, mathematical language and experimentation.
dee-em
Posts: 6,477
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 12:42:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
The ancient Hebrews did indeed describe the creation of the world to fit in with how they saw it:

http://www.debate.org...

Genesis for dummies (Hebrew cosmology explained).
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 12:49:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

When I first read that, and got up off the floor, I began to think about things that could be described as "without form, and void..." and could not come up with "gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid and finally cooled and hardened into rock." Then, I asked several other people the first thing that popped into their heads after hearing "without form, and void..." and they too came up with even more examples, again, none of them even remotely resembling "gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid and finally cooled and hardened into rock."

So, then I wondered, how in tarnation does one come up with "gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid and finally cooled and hardened into rock" after hearing the phrase, "without form, and void..." when there are so many more answers?

Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.

Seriously E, my mind is boggling at what you wrote there, yes, it's scary, no, it isn't reasonable.

You will hear the more science-illiterate ones say that Genesis reads like a fairy tale. But that is because due to their ignorance, SCIENCE reads like a fairy tale to them.

You get top marks for spinning the best fairy tale, this day, E.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 9:02:59 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 12:42:11 AM, oneteacher wrote:
At 4/12/2016 12:29:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

A survey of mythology shows that ancient people came up with all manner of fanciful ideas. Here's a link to some of them: [http://listverse.com...]

If you look for cherry-picked parallels to scientific theories of cosmogenesis, you can find them in many myths. On the other hand, none stand out as being accurately predictive of anything specific and significant in science.

Science is confusing more people today than religion did starting thousands of years ago.
Please could you name five incidents in any religion in which there has been major canonical disagreement among thousands of adherents, resolved in a decade or two without violence or political oppression?

Would you like to know how many times this has occurred in science?

It happens almost every year.

Not only that, but revolutionary scientific ideas have replaced cherished old ideas in every discipline -- bringing the whole of science along, in every case without a blow being struck.

How many times has that occurred in religion?

How is this continuous, centuries-long, humble, honest, accountable, transparent, evidence-based innovation and consolidation more confusing and chaotic than the schims, holy wars, pogroms, millennia-long antipathies, forced conversions, ethnic cleansings, executions, vilifications and persecutions of religion?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 10:43:58 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
When the implications of a fact are too scary to contemplate, people pretend the fact doesn't exist.

If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

Here s a short list of things whose implications are too scary for some to contemplate.

1. The author of Genesis knew that stars were not the only source of light in the early universe.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

My only pick with this is that verse 1 tells us that the heavens, which can only be including sun moon and stars, otherwise they could not truly be said to have been created, tells us that they are already in existence.


This is frankly amazing in that all they had to go on was that it was dark when the sun went away and bright again when it appeared. To write a story where there was light WITHOUT the sun must have perplexed them. But they were writing what was true, not what they had made up. SO they had to follow the facts even if it surpassed their knowledge at the time.

But as verse 1 says the sun was already present. It is an integral part of the heavens, and in fact the "sun moon and stars" are the heavens. The sun after all is merely another star, just a "local" one.


2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

And as it cooled probably completely covered by condensed water, with the atmosphere full of volcanic ash and other debris. Hence at first even the light of the sun was not able to penetrate. If you think about it, everything from verse 2 on is written as if by a terrestrial observer.


This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

Absolutely.


3. The author of Genesis knew that some plants did not need sunlight to live.

But by this verse sunlight was penetrating the still clouded atmosphere.

Gen 1:11 - And God said, "Let the Earth bring forth Grass...."

This is truly amazing in that such plants live in very remote and inhospitable places, like inside hot springs and /or deep caves, and at the bottom of the ocean. How did he know? We now know that the first plants did not use photosynthesis. Coincidence that the author of Genesis was correct again?

However such plants are not green and are very specialised. Photosynthesis was needed to reduce the carbon dioxide content in the putative atmosphere and increase oxygen levels.


4. The author of Genesis knew that the atmosphere of the Earth formed after its creation. He knew that there was no rain until the atmosphere formed.
Gen 2:5 - "....for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the Earth.....
Gen 2:6 - "But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."


In fact Genesis indicates that there was no rain until after the flood, all moisture was dew, condensing on the ground.


How would the author of Genesis know this unless he was told? Why would a "primitive" man even think of the atmosphere as a thing separate from the earth, or that it affected weather? In all their questions about Genesis, you'll never hear an atheist ask about such things.

5. The author of Genesis knew that plants came first, then ocean animals, then land animals, and finally man, just as science has discovered.
Genesis 1

Would not a "primitive" man, making stuff up assume that God created everything basically at once? Is it AGAIN coincidence that he got the order of life's appearance on earth correct, even listing earlier species first? How would he know that fish predate earthworms? The list of things the author of Genesis "just happened" to get right is far more than can be explained by chance.

6. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth's crust contained millions of tons of water.
Gen 7:11 - ....the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of Heaven were opened.

That is when the water mantle placed around the earth was brought crashing down onto it. Certainly breaking up the planetary crust, and causing the initial breakup of the original single continent (Genesis 10:25).

This also is a strong partial indication of why so many strata were tilted raising parts of the crust and sinking others.


For years atheists argued that there was not enough water on the Earth to make the flood story true. Now we find that there is more water in the Earth's crust than in all the Earth's oceans. How did the author of Genesis know this? If he was making the story up, why would he think of mentioning that the flood was aided by water that came OUT OF THE EARTH? Coincidence again?

Don't for get the "water above the expanse" which formed a large percentage of the deluge.


7. The author of Genesis knew that originally there was only one gender.
Gen 2:18 - And the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Would not a made up story by a primitive man have God create men and women separately and at the same time? Yet we see that the primitive man is correct by science again. He knew that the second gender came out of the original gender, and was not created separately. Science has wrestled with the necessity of different gender sex for ages. Science has caught up with the Bible.

8. The author of Genesis knew that the universe began with a cataclysmic explosion of light.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

Of course, science illiterates do not know every form of EM radiation is light. Because they can only see a small spectrum of that light, they think that small spectrum is all that light is. UV rays, X-Rays, Gamma rays, radio waves, cosmic waves are all forms of "light". The primitive author of Genesis knew this, it took the rest of us 6,000 years to figure it out.

9. The author of Genesis knew that "Day" and "Night" did not need to be Sol-centric.
Gen 1:13 - And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Now that we have traveled (vicariously through space telescopes), to other solar systems, we know that day and night can refer to other stars and can have different lengths depending on the orbits of planets around those suns. So in Genesis we had days and nights before the sun was mentioned. Days and nights with a reference to other than our sun? Is that a primitive concept?

10. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth began with one land mass and one ocean.
Gen 1:9 - And God said, "Let the water under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear."

Amazing is it not? How would the author of Genesis know this? Was it a guess? The study of plate tectonics and geography only recently discovered this. Yet the primitive man knew about it. Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.

You will hear the more science-illiterate ones say that Genesis reads like a fairy tale. But that is because due to their ignorance, SCIENCE reads like a fairy tale to them
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 10:52:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Basically a reasonable but not 100% accurate summation which misses one or two important facts, such as the fact that the sun moon and starts are not just part of the "heavens" created in verse one, they are the entirety of it.

It also omits the water mantle, and doesn't take into account the scriptural description of an earth with no rain, and watered by heavy dews up to the time of the flood.

It also ignores the scriptural and scientific description of the earth as having only one original continent which science has named Pangea, and which, according to Genesis did not split until after the flood (Genesis 10:25).

The breakup of the crust which ended up with the splitting of the continent, as well as the tilting of the crust sinking some bits and raising others is effectively explained by the impact of the water mantle being brought to earth and almost certainly primarily round the poles to preserve Noah and his Ark, which would otherwise have been crushed as apparently some Mammoths were.

This would explain also the apparent climate change noticed by science, and at least 1 Ice age.

The Genesis account is far more consistent with current scientific knowledge than most wish to believe, and good as your description was it lacked a little detail.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 12:49:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 8:46:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

When the implications of a fact are too scary to contemplate, people pretend the fact doesn't exist.

If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

Here s a short list of things whose implications are too scary for some to contemplate.

1. The author of Genesis knew that stars were not the only source of light in the early universe.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

This is frankly amazing in that all they had to go on was that it was dark when the sun went away and bright again when it appeared. To write a story where there was light WITHOUT the sun must have perplexed them. But they were writing what was true, not what they had made up. SO they had to follow the facts even if it surpassed their knowledge at the time.

Why couldn"t they have identified light as a separate entity from the sun?

What "light" as a separate entity from the sun would a man living 6,000 years ago mention? Fire? Or are you surprised he didn't mention a halogen flashlight?

In Genesis 1:16 ("God made two great lights"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."), so the sun was obviously not believed to be the only source of light

And yet the atheist made an entire thread about how could there be light without the sun! Bible right again.

(and were wrong about the "lesser light" being a light).

Have you ever used the term "moonlight"? Were you wrong? And do you think while telling the creation story was the time and place to diverge into a primer on light reflection?

And how exactly do you know that they wrote about what they knew and not what they made up?

Because they were right too often, and were right about things that would not be discovered by science for thousands of years. Thy knew about things it was not possible to guess about. Guessing that the Earth was first a formless gas in space that coalesced into a planet? 6,000 years ago? Are you kidding me?

Is it unfathomable that one could imagine the presence of light without a visible light source?

6,000 years ago? Yes. Why, it was only a few dozen years ago that we figured out that it was not evil spirits which caused meat to rot.

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

How do you extrapolate that from the few words that were there? And how does the rest of the verse fit into this: ""and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."? The eight words that you have here do not at all describe a process.

Should he have spent 20 pages on the process of planet formation when the process was not the point? It was first a formless gas, devoid of life. Then as it contracts it heats up to molten lava. To the author, a primitive, it appears to be a ball of one gigantic ocean. So he calls it "waters". Do you expect a guy who has never seen or heard of an airplane to call it a bird or an F-16?

3. The author of Genesis knew that some plants did not need sunlight to live.
Gen 1:11 - And God said, "Let the Earth bring forth Grass...."

This is truly amazing in that such plants live in very remote and inhospitable places, like inside hot springs and /or deep caves, and at the bottom of the ocean. How did he know? We now know that the first plants did not use photosynthesis. Coincidence that the author of Genesis was correct again?

"", the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

How are you getting that out of this passage? None of the plants listed here meet the criteria you are describing; your conclusion does not follow.

It would if you would read Genesis. The first plants were said to have come about BEFORE sunlight reached the Earth.

4. The author of Genesis knew that the atmosphere of the Earth formed after its creation. He knew that there was no rain until the atmosphere formed.
Gen 2:5 - "....for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the Earth.....
Gen 2:6 - "But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."


How would the author of Genesis know this unless he was told? Why would a "primitive" man even think of the atmosphere as a thing separate from the earth, or that it affected weather? In all their questions about Genesis, you'll never hear an atheist ask about such things.

What is easier for you to imagine: the Earth without an atmosphere or an atmosphere without the Earth?

A man of 6,000 years ago would have no concept of an atmosphere.

Plus, "mist" doesn"t allude to an atmosphere; if anything significantly more that imagining mist from like a waterfall, it would be evaporation. Even that is quite a stretch given the context.

I did not say mist was an atmosphere. The author is trying to show how there could be plants when there had been no rain. By the time the author wrote this, there was an atmosphere and rain. How did a primitive man know that in the Earth's formation, rain would not happen immediately?

5. The author of Genesis knew that plants came first, then ocean animals, then land animals, and finally man, just as science has discovered.
Genesis 1

Would not a "primitive" man, making stuff up assume that God created everything basically at once? Is it AGAIN coincidence that he got the order of life's appearance on earth correct, even listing earlier species first? How would he know that fish predate earthworms? The list of things the author of Genesis "just happened" to get right is far more than can be explained by chance.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 1:10:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 8:46:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Many failures, here:

(2) The Bible specifies whales, which are descendant from mammalian ancestors (according to modern science), so being described as created before the land animals rails against modern science.

Again, don't become confused by taxonomy. The Bible is not using the classification of 2016. What is listed as "whale" here is not the whale we think of today, but just very large fishes. The translators of the Bible used words that would give the greatest understanding to the readers of their day.

(3) Even if the authors did describe everything in the correct order, what other order to you think would make more sense in an intuitive way?

Vertebrates after insects.

Plants generally constitute the land and would not appear to feed on anything (thus being foundational), so that"s an obvious first.

But in the ocean first? Isn't it more intuitive to a primitive who knows nothing about the subsurface of the ocean to think life started on land and then went into the ocean?

I don"t see how the sea/land animal order is more intuitive, either way.

Ok, so the author got everything correct, and we are to fault him because that order was intuitive? You are unable to see things as a primitive man would. Had he gotten anything wrong, I bet you wouldn't have been so nonchalant about that.

The true wonder of Genesis is in the totality of what he got right. A hundred pieces of circumstantial evidence together can be quite convincing.

Do you not find it the least curious that the author was able to mention that the Earth was formless and void? God seems to have fashioned the Earth from material already there, or watched it evolve. But is it not at least curious that he got that right?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 2:04:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
When the implications of a fact are too scary to contemplate, people pretend the fact doesn't exist.

If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

Here s a short list of things whose implications are too scary for some to contemplate.

1. The author of Genesis knew that stars were not the only source of light in the early universe.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

This is frankly amazing in that all they had to go on was that it was dark when the sun went away and bright again when it appeared. To write a story where there was light WITHOUT the sun must have perplexed them. But they were writing what was true, not what they had made up. SO they had to follow the facts even if it surpassed their knowledge at the time.

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

3. The author of Genesis knew that some plants did not need sunlight to live.
Gen 1:11 - And God said, "Let the Earth bring forth Grass...."

This is truly amazing in that such plants live in very remote and inhospitable places, like inside hot springs and /or deep caves, and at the bottom of the ocean. How did he know? We now know that the first plants did not use photosynthesis. Coincidence that the author of Genesis was correct again?

4. The author of Genesis knew that the atmosphere of the Earth formed after its creation. He knew that there was no rain until the atmosphere formed.
Gen 2:5 - "....for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the Earth.....
Gen 2:6 - "But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."


How would the author of Genesis know this unless he was told? Why would a "primitive" man even think of the atmosphere as a thing separate from the earth, or that it affected weather? In all their questions about Genesis, you'll never hear an atheist ask about such things.

5. The author of Genesis knew that plants came first, then ocean animals, then land animals, and finally man, just as science has discovered.
Genesis 1

Would not a "primitive" man, making stuff up assume that God created everything basically at once? Is it AGAIN coincidence that he got the order of life's appearance on earth correct, even listing earlier species first? How would he know that fish predate earthworms? The list of things the author of Genesis "just happened" to get right is far more than can be explained by chance.

6. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth's crust contained millions of tons of water.
Gen 7:11 - ....the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of Heaven were opened.

For years atheists argued that there was not enough water on the Earth to make the flood story true. Now we find that there is more water in the Earth's crust than in all the Earth's oceans. How did the author of Genesis know this? If he was making the story up, why would he think of mentioning that the flood was aided by water that came OUT OF THE EARTH? Coincidence again?

7. The author of Genesis knew that originally there was only one gender.
Gen 2:18 - And the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Would not a made up story by a primitive man have God create men and women separately and at the same time? Yet we see that the primitive man is correct by science again. He knew that the second gender came out of the original gender, and was not created separately. Science has wrestled with the necessity of different gender sex for ages. Science has caught up with the Bible.

8. The author of Genesis knew that the universe began with a cataclysmic explosion of light.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

Of course, science illiterates do not know every form of EM radiation is light. Because they can only see a small spectrum of that light, they think that small spectrum is all that light is. UV rays, X-Rays, Gamma rays, radio waves, cosmic waves are all forms of "light". The primitive author of Genesis knew this, it took the rest of us 6,000 years to figure it out.

9. The author of Genesis knew that "Day" and "Night" did not need to be Sol-centric.
Gen 1:13 - And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Now that we have traveled (vicariously through space telescopes), to other solar systems, we know that day and night can refer to other stars and can have different lengths depending on the orbits of planets around those suns. So in Genesis we had days and nights before the sun was mentioned. Days and nights with a reference to other than our sun? Is that a primitive concept?

10. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth began with one land mass and one ocean.
Gen 1:9 - And God said, "Let the water under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear."

Amazing is it not? How would the author of Genesis know this? Was it a guess? The study of plate tectonics and geography only recently discovered this. Yet the primitive man knew about it. Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.

You will hear the more science-illiterate ones say that Genesis reads like a fairy tale. But that is because due to their ignorance, SCIENCE reads like a fairy tale to them.

What is even more amazing is the same people who understood creation ended up crucifying the very son of the Creator for his blasphemous lies and lunacy. Irony of ironies.
What is even more amazing is Christians no longer marvel at creation but worship a dead Jewish corpse nailed to a wooden cross who was crucified to atone for their sins. So what began as a marvel of creation somehow turned out perverted and sinful so much so that an act of human sacrifice (sacrifice of the creators son Jesus) was necessary to restore the future.
Paradoxically Christians know more about sin than the world they live in. The bible did not enhance our knowledge about the universe we live in and left that to science. But science cannot trace the origins of sin and there rests the profundity.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 3:32:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 12:29:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

A survey of mythology shows that ancient people came up with all manner of fanciful ideas. Here's a link to some of them: [http://listverse.com...]

If you look for cherry-picked parallels to scientific theories of cosmogenesis, you can find them in many myths.

One or two in any one religion sure. But there as so many in the Bible it leaves atheist speechless.

On the other hand, none stand out as being accurately predictive of anything specific and significant in science.

This is where atheists bring out the dishonest stupidity. The Bible does not intend to be predictive of anything specific and significant in science. That would be like expecting the Commodores "She's a Brick House" to be accurately predictive of anything specific and significant in femininity.

But the atheist will smarmily imply that the Bible is not accurately predictive of anything specific and significant in science as if that is a failing of the Bible. The Bible was written 2,000 years ago, what was "specific and significant in science" back then? 500 yeas ago, no scientist knew the significance of electricity. Would the Bible have passed the disingenuous "anything specific and significant in science" bar back then?

500 years from now, do you think there will have been specific and significant discoveries in science you presently don't know about?

The author knew that water from inside the Earth supplemented the rain, (Geology) that the Earth was once formless, (astrophysics) that early Earth atmosphere produced no rain. (Climate science) Just to name 3.

Nothing specific and significant in science? I smell irrational bias.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 3:47:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 12:49:26 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

When I first read that, and got up off the floor, I began to think about things that could be described as "without form, and void..." and could not come up with "gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid and finally cooled and hardened into rock." Then, I asked several other people the first thing that popped into their heads after hearing "without form, and void..." and they too came up with even more examples, again, none of them even remotely resembling "gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid and finally cooled and hardened into rock."

So, then I wondered, how in tarnation does one come up with "gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid and finally cooled and hardened into rock" after hearing the phrase, "without form, and void..." when there are so many more answers?

Notice he posts none of them here?

Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.

Seriously E, my mind is boggling at what you wrote there, yes, it's scary, no, it isn't reasonable.

Ok, as usual, we will simply take your word for it. You never need support for your claims.

You will hear the more science-illiterate ones say that Genesis reads like a fairy tale. But that is because due to their ignorance, SCIENCE reads like a fairy tale to them.

You get top marks for spinning the best fairy tale, this day, E.

Ah, one of the more science-illiterate ones. Welcome.

First he describes the Earth as formless, then he says the Spirit of God moves over the face of the waters..... still later he says dry land appears.

Too bad God didn't have the author write a volume for you on planet formation. That would have been so much more effective towards God's purpose of salvation.

Vast Underwater Ocean Trapped Beneath Earth's Crust ...
http://www.natureworldnews.com...

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth
http://www.livescience.com...

Who knew?

The author of Genesis knew.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 3:56:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
When the implications of a fact are too scary to contemplate, people pretend the fact doesn't exist.

If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

Not if they themselves had to "build" things as well.

Here s a short list of things whose implications are too scary for some to contemplate.

1. The author of Genesis knew that stars were not the only source of light in the early universe.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

This is frankly amazing in that all they had to go on was that it was dark when the sun went away and bright again when it appeared. To write a story where there was light WITHOUT the sun must have perplexed them. But they were writing what was true, not what they had made up. SO they had to follow the facts even if it surpassed their knowledge at the time.

.... but God was "hovering" over water, first. Um....

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

Unless the idea was that the world was one big ocean first. Then God made the various lights over it, after pulling land up from under the waters mentioned in Genesis 1.

3. The author of Genesis knew that some plants did not need sunlight to live.
Gen 1:11 - And God said, "Let the Earth bring forth Grass...."

This is truly amazing in that such plants live in very remote and inhospitable places, like inside hot springs and /or deep caves, and at the bottom of the ocean. How did he know? We now know that the first plants did not use photosynthesis. Coincidence that the author of Genesis was correct again?

Or that's what he observed, and attributed it to God.

4. The author of Genesis knew that the atmosphere of the Earth formed after its creation. He knew that there was no rain until the atmosphere formed.
Gen 2:5 - "....for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the Earth.....
Gen 2:6 - "But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."


How would the author of Genesis know this unless he was told?

Cause he saw what "fog" is, and how it rolls across the water?

Why would a "primitive" man even think of the atmosphere as a thing separate from the earth, or that it affected weather? In all their questions about Genesis, you'll never hear an atheist ask about such things.

With good reason: it reads as primitive observation.

5. The author of Genesis knew that plants came first, then ocean animals, then land animals, and finally man, just as science has discovered.
Genesis 1

You mean... -gasp- evolved?!?!?

Would not a "primitive" man, making stuff up assume that God created everything basically at once? Is it AGAIN coincidence that he got the order of life's appearance on earth correct, even listing earlier species first? How would he know that fish predate earthworms? The list of things the author of Genesis "just happened" to get right is far more than can be explained by chance.

Sort of like a guy that watches some kids playing a pick up game of football can coincidentally get it right about the basics of the game.

6. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth's crust contained millions of tons of water.
Gen 7:11 - ....the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of Heaven were opened.

"Springs", "oasis".... its almost like primitive man had something to go off of.

For years atheists argued that there was not enough water on the Earth to make the flood story true. Now we find that there is more water in the Earth's crust than in all the Earth's oceans. How did the author of Genesis know this? If he was making the story up, why would he think of mentioning that the flood was aided by water that came OUT OF THE EARTH? Coincidence again?

I will let you piece that one together, you are missing a few things.

7. The author of Genesis knew that originally there was only one gender.
Gen 2:18 - And the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Would not a made up story by a primitive man have God create men and women separately and at the same time?

Of course not. There is authority to claim. Man came first.

Yet we see that the primitive man is correct by science again. He knew that the second gender came out of the original gender, and was not created separately. Science has wrestled with the necessity of different gender sex for ages. Science has caught up with the Bible.

This doesn't even warrant a reply, Ethan.

8. The author of Genesis knew that the universe began with a cataclysmic explosion of light.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

Of course, science illiterates do not know every form of EM radiation is light. Because they can only see a small spectrum of that light, they think that small spectrum is all that light is. UV rays, X-Rays, Gamma rays, radio waves, cosmic waves are all forms of "light". The primitive author of Genesis knew this, it took the rest of us 6,000 years to figure it out.

Are you sure you don't have a personal interpretation? Cause that smacks of it. He hovered over some waters, then made this "light". Hm. Its going to take some mental gymnastics to actually reconcile all this, so go ahead and limber up.

9. The author of Genesis knew that "Day" and "Night" did not need to be Sol-centric.
Gen 1:13 - And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Now that we have traveled (vicariously through space telescopes), to other solar systems, we know that day and night can refer to other stars and can have different lengths depending on the orbits of planets around those suns. So in Genesis we had days and nights before the sun was mentioned. Days and nights with a reference to other than our sun? Is that a primitive concept?

Depends on how creative you want to be.

10. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth began with one land mass and one ocean.
Gen 1:9 - And God said, "Let the water under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear."

Amazing is it not? How would the author of Genesis know this? Was it a guess? The study of plate tectonics and geography only recently discovered this. Yet the primitive man knew about it. Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.

Or the writer didn't know of other continents to begin with. Easier answer.

You will hear the more science-illiterate ones say that Genesis reads like a fairy tale. But that is because due to their ignorance, SCIENCE reads like a fairy tale to them.

Sure. By what method was all those waters of the deep opened, and once released, where did they go? What was the sustaining force of all that?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 3:57:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:04:02 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
When the implications of a fact are too scary to contemplate, people pretend the fact doesn't exist.

If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

Here s a short list of things whose implications are too scary for some to contemplate.

1. The author of Genesis knew that stars were not the only source of light in the early universe.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

This is frankly amazing in that all they had to go on was that it was dark when the sun went away and bright again when it appeared. To write a story where there was light WITHOUT the sun must have perplexed them. But they were writing what was true, not what they had made up. SO they had to follow the facts even if it surpassed their knowledge at the time.

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

3. The author of Genesis knew that some plants did not need sunlight to live.
Gen 1:11 - And God said, "Let the Earth bring forth Grass...."

This is truly amazing in that such plants live in very remote and inhospitable places, like inside hot springs and /or deep caves, and at the bottom of the ocean. How did he know? We now know that the first plants did not use photosynthesis. Coincidence that the author of Genesis was correct again?

4. The author of Genesis knew that the atmosphere of the Earth formed after its creation. He knew that there was no rain until the atmosphere formed.
Gen 2:5 - "....for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the Earth.....
Gen 2:6 - "But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."


How would the author of Genesis know this unless he was told? Why would a "primitive" man even think of the atmosphere as a thing separate from the earth, or that it affected weather? In all their questions about Genesis, you'll never hear an atheist ask about such things.

5. The author of Genesis knew that plants came first, then ocean animals, then land animals, and finally man, just as science has discovered.
Genesis 1

Would not a "primitive" man, making stuff up assume that God created everything basically at once? Is it AGAIN coincidence that he got the order of life's appearance on earth correct, even listing earlier species first? How would he know that fish predate earthworms? The list of things the author of Genesis "just happened" to get right is far more than can be explained by chance.

6. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth's crust contained millions of tons of water.
Gen 7:11 - ....the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of Heaven were opened.

For years atheists argued that there was not enough water on the Earth to make the flood story true. Now we find that there is more water in the Earth's crust than in all the Earth's oceans. How did the author of Genesis know this? If he was making the story up, why would he think of mentioning that the flood was aided by water that came OUT OF THE EARTH? Coincidence again?

7. The author of Genesis knew that originally there was only one gender.
Gen 2:18 - And the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Would not a made up story by a primitive man have God create men and women separately and at the same time? Yet we see that the primitive man is correct by science again. He knew that the second gender came out of the original gender, and was not created separately. Science has wrestled with the necessity of different gender sex for ages. Science has caught up with the Bible.

8. The author of Genesis knew that the universe began with a cataclysmic explosion of light.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

Of course, science illiterates do not know every form of EM radiation is light. Because they can only see a small spectrum of that light, they think that small spectrum is all that light is. UV rays, X-Rays, Gamma rays, radio waves, cosmic waves are all forms of "light". The primitive author of Genesis knew this, it took the rest of us 6,000 years to figure it out.

9. The author of Genesis knew that "Day" and "Night" did not need to be Sol-centric.
Gen 1:13 - And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Now that we have traveled (vicariously through space telescopes), to other solar systems, we know that day and night can refer to other stars and can have different lengths depending on the orbits of planets around those suns. So in Genesis we had days and nights before the sun was mentioned. Days and nights with a reference to other than our sun? Is that a primitive concept?

10. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth began with one land mass and one ocean.
Gen 1:9 - And God said, "Let the water under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear."

Amazing is it not? How would the author of Genesis know this? Was it a guess? The study of plate tectonics and geography only recently discovered this. Yet the primitive man knew about it. Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.

You will hear the more science-illiterate ones say that Genesis reads like a fairy tale. But that is because due to their ignorance, SCIENCE reads like a fairy tale to them.

What is even more amazing is the same people who understood creation ended up crucifying the very son of the Creator for his blasphemous lies and lunacy. Irony of ironies.

Yes, the Bible points that out in the Book of John. But that isn't more amazing.

What is even more amazing is Christians no longer marvel at creation but worship a dead Jewish corpse nailed to a wooden cross who was crucified to atone for their sins. So what began as a marvel of creation somehow turned out perverted and sinful so much so that an act of human sacrifice (sacrifice of the creators son Jesus) was necessary to restore the future.

As they say in the south, "You can't do anything about stupid."

Paradoxically Christians know more about sin than the world they live in. The bible did not enhance our knowledge about the universe we live in and left that to science. But science cannot trace the origins of sin and there rests the profundity.

You are uninformed of science and disbelieve the Bible. Talk about profound ignorance!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 4:29:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 12:49:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 8:46:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

1. The author of Genesis knew that stars were not the only source of light in the early universe.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

This is frankly amazing in that all they had to go on was that it was dark when the sun went away and bright again when it appeared. To write a story where there was light WITHOUT the sun must have perplexed them. But they were writing what was true, not what they had made up. SO they had to follow the facts even if it surpassed their knowledge at the time.

Why couldn"t they have identified light as a separate entity from the sun?

What "light" as a separate entity from the sun would a man living 6,000 years ago mention? Fire? Or are you surprised he didn't mention a halogen flashlight?

What's wrong with fire; is it not a source of light? And why would people not be able to notice that light could exist even when the sun (or moon) wasn't visible? This would make it absolutely possible for any person to imagine the presence of light with no direct source. It takes a great leap to attribute this as necessarily knowledge, especially with such a simply-worded verse.

In Genesis 1:16 ("God made two great lights"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."), so the sun was obviously not believed to be the only source of light

And yet the atheist made an entire thread about how could there be light without the sun! Bible right again.

What? If you are talking about my response, here, I never said that - I said that it is very easy to imagine the presence of light without an apparent source.

(and were wrong about the "lesser light" being a light).

Have you ever used the term "moonlight"? Were you wrong? And do you think while telling the creation story was the time and place to diverge into a primer on light reflection?

It is clearly described as a "great light" along with the sun. The term "moonlight" could have equally arisen from when people thought the moon emitted light and persisted despite discovering it was false because it still adequately conveyed the intended concept. We have such terms throughout our society, such as with the attribution of emotions and love to the heart, even though we know, today, that the brain is wholly responsible for these.

BTW - you missed my point about the authors never mentioning the other countless stars in our universe as light sources.

And how exactly do you know that they wrote about what they knew and not what they made up?

Because they were right too often, and were right about things that would not be discovered by science for thousands of years. Thy knew about things it was not possible to guess about. Guessing that the Earth was first a formless gas in space that coalesced into a planet? 6,000 years ago? Are you kidding me?

They were right according to the way you are interpreting these very simple words and extracting elaborate meanings from them. That which you are claiming that they could not of guessed about is pretty true, but there is nothing in those passages that suggest that is exactly what they had in mind.

Is it unfathomable that one could imagine the presence of light without a visible light source?

6,000 years ago? Yes. Why, it was only a few dozen years ago that we figured out that it was not evil spirits which caused meat to rot.

Why? On a day of overcast, the light would be present without a visible source. Why would it be so hard to imagine a light without a visible source? You know in t the past, many people thought that light originated from the eye, itself. (http://web.stanford.edu...)

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

How do you extrapolate that from the few words that were there? And how does the rest of the verse fit into this: ...and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."? The eight words that you have here do not at all describe a process.

Should he have spent 20 pages on the process of planet formation when the process was not the point? It was first a formless gas, devoid of life. Then as it contracts it heats up to molten lava. To the author, a primitive, it appears to be a ball of one gigantic ocean. So he calls it "waters". Do you expect a guy who has never seen or heard of an airplane to call it a bird or an F-16?

No, but he wouldn't have had to. The moon was specifically described as a "great light" along with the sun. There was no difference implied except that the moon was a lesser "great light". A few words to say it was different would've provided at least some justification for your conclusion, here. Regarding the analogous example, he wouldn't have referred to it as just a bird, but included something else to tell why it was different from a bird, referring to the shiny body, lack of flapping wings, or the smoke trail, for instance.

3. The author of Genesis knew that some plants did not need sunlight to live.
Gen 1:11 - And God said, "Let the Earth bring forth Grass...."

This is truly amazing in that such plants live in very remote and inhospitable places, like inside hot springs and /or deep caves, and at the bottom of the ocean. How did he know? We now know that the first plants did not use photosynthesis. Coincidence that the author of Genesis was correct again?

..., the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

How are you getting that out of this passage? None of the plants listed here meet the criteria you are describing; your conclusion does not follow.

It would if you would read Genesis. The first plants were said to have come about BEFORE sunlight reached the Earth.

And what leads you to believe that light did not exist at that time? That the grass was necessarily created in darkness?? "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." - Genesis 1:5

...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 4:32:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 12:49:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 8:46:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

...

4. The author of Genesis knew that the atmosphere of the Earth formed after its creation. He knew that there was no rain until the atmosphere formed.
Gen 2:5 - "....for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the Earth.....
Gen 2:6 - "But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."


How would the author of Genesis know this unless he was told? Why would a "primitive" man even think of the atmosphere as a thing separate from the earth, or that it affected weather? In all their questions about Genesis, you'll never hear an atheist ask about such things.

What is easier for you to imagine: the Earth without an atmosphere or an atmosphere without the Earth?

A man of 6,000 years ago would have no concept of an atmosphere.

As we know it, no. But, a more primitive concept could constitute the air and wind and whatnot. But you got that word out of the verses, somehow.

Plus, "mist" doesn"t allude to an atmosphere; if anything significantly more that imagining mist from like a waterfall, it would be evaporation. Even that is quite a stretch given the context.

I did not say mist was an atmosphere. The author is trying to show how there could be plants when there had been no rain. By the time the author wrote this, there was an atmosphere and rain. How did a primitive man know that in the Earth's formation, rain would not happen immediately?

Then which words in the verse did you draw that conclusion from? And could you possibly know what the author was "trying to show" without having access to the author?

5. The author of Genesis knew that plants came first, then ocean animals, then land animals, and finally man, just as science has discovered.
Genesis 1

Would not a "primitive" man, making stuff up assume that God created everything basically at once? Is it AGAIN coincidence that he got the order of life's appearance on earth correct, even listing earlier species first? How would he know that fish predate earthworms? The list of things the author of Genesis "just happened" to get right is far more than can be explained by chance.

Why? Different steps accentuate the differences, and makes for a more appealing story or explanation. For instance, the Hindu creation account says Brahma creates human beings and all life. All different species come out from different parts of Brahma"s body. He created man as the first of the animals and the strongest. He created him from his own soul. One of the stories mentions that Brahma splits himself into two to create male and female (http://www.ancient-origins.net...). We often separate ourselves as superior and special.

---

What you are doing is refusing to think critically and are succumbing to confirmation bias. You, being familiar with modern knowledge, are formulating possible interpretations to suit that knowledge while simultaneously disregarding all plausible explanations that would indicate otherwise. You already have your conclusion and you are seeking means to support it, here. Imagination is a powerful asset to mankind but it becomes a problem if not kept in check. That's where critical thinking comes in, and why it's so vital. Take this passage from the Quran, for instance:

"O company of jinn and mankind, if you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass. You will not pass except by authority [from Allah ]." - Surat Al-Rahman 55:33

This verse is commonly interpreted as a prediction that humans will fly, being attributed to modern aviation. Do you believe that the Quran is wholly correct? If not, then what do you make of this passage in regard to this alleged prediction?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 4:36:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 1:10:38 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 8:46:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Many failures, here:

You ignored my first point - why did the author erroneously describe winged fowl before the land animals? This invalidates your conclusion.

(2) The Bible specifies whales, which are descendant from mammalian ancestors (according to modern science), so being described as created before the land animals rails against modern science.

Again, don't become confused by taxonomy. The Bible is not using the classification of 2016. What is listed as "whale" here is not the whale we think of today, but just very large fishes. The translators of the Bible used words that would give the greatest understanding to the readers of their day.

OK, so then this opens the door to more problems. First, how do you know that they weren't conceptually including whales in that groups even if could be shown that they were not referring to whales, specifically? Secondly, if you acknowledge translational errors and manipulations in favor of your pre-established conclusion, then why don't you see them as plausible explanations as to why some of these passages appear correct? Why couldn't it be that someone making the translations interpreted it in a way which he thought was correct, like you are doing, here?

(3) Even if the authors did describe everything in the correct order, what other order to you think would make more sense in an intuitive way?

Vertebrates after insects.

This makes no sense. Many aquatic creatures are invertebrates, as well, so this does not reflect the distinction in the bible. You are inserting your own understandings and reasoning into what you perceive as the intent of the author.

Plants generally constitute the land and would not appear to feed on anything (thus being foundational), so that"s an obvious first.

But in the ocean first? Isn't it more intuitive to a primitive who knows nothing about the subsurface of the ocean to think life started on land and then went into the ocean?

Show me specifically were the Bible refers to plants that are in the ocean. Neither of us can claim to know what the author's intent was, not what those primitive people found intuitive, so this is a fruitless exchange. The point is that it's quite possible for the order that is presented to be intuitively appealing to the author. And until this is disproven, then you cannot discount this as a very plausible explanation.

I don"t see how the sea/land animal order is more intuitive, either way.

Ok, so the author got everything correct, and we are to fault him because that order was intuitive? You are unable to see things as a primitive man would. Had he gotten anything wrong, I bet you wouldn't have been so nonchalant about that.

Please understand my intentions, here. I am not trying to call the Bible wrong because of this; I am saying that the conclusion that you are arriving at are not reasonable, largely due to the strong ambiguity and simplicity of the passages. Again, critical thinking is essential in rooting out our unwarranted conclusions, and I am simply applying that critical thinking in an effort to aid you, here.

The true wonder of Genesis is in the totality of what he got right. A hundred pieces of circumstantial evidence together can be quite convincing.

If all of the evidence is gathered from the interpretation of incredible simple and vague Bible passages, then how can that be call an abundance of evidence? It's only solid and convincing evidence to the non-skeptical through the lens of confirmation bias. Seriously, try to entertain the possibility that they might just be the simple statement they appear to be. Draw conclusions from that standpoint (like I'm doing) and then compare their plausibility. Apply Occam's Razor.

Do you not find it the least curious that the author was able to mention that the Earth was formless and void? God seems to have fashioned the Earth from material already there, or watched it evolve. But is it not at least curious that he got that right?

Not really, because there is no inherent meaning in those words beyond those vague words. If it was actually specific, rather than just interpreted so, then I would give it more consideration. However, the words are here but the author is not available to question, so there's really nothing we can solidly conclude from them.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 5:36:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 3:57:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:04:02 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
When the implications of a fact are too scary to contemplate, people pretend the fact doesn't exist.

If Genesis was made up by a primitive people, wouldn't they have assumed that God made the world as it appeared to them? Earth, ocean, sky intact?

Here s a short list of things whose implications are too scary for some to contemplate.

1. The author of Genesis knew that stars were not the only source of light in the early universe.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

This is frankly amazing in that all they had to go on was that it was dark when the sun went away and bright again when it appeared. To write a story where there was light WITHOUT the sun must have perplexed them. But they were writing what was true, not what they had made up. SO they had to follow the facts even if it surpassed their knowledge at the time.

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

3. The author of Genesis knew that some plants did not need sunlight to live.
Gen 1:11 - And God said, "Let the Earth bring forth Grass...."

This is truly amazing in that such plants live in very remote and inhospitable places, like inside hot springs and /or deep caves, and at the bottom of the ocean. How did he know? We now know that the first plants did not use photosynthesis. Coincidence that the author of Genesis was correct again?

4. The author of Genesis knew that the atmosphere of the Earth formed after its creation. He knew that there was no rain until the atmosphere formed.
Gen 2:5 - "....for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the Earth.....
Gen 2:6 - "But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."


How would the author of Genesis know this unless he was told? Why would a "primitive" man even think of the atmosphere as a thing separate from the earth, or that it affected weather? In all their questions about Genesis, you'll never hear an atheist ask about such things.

5. The author of Genesis knew that plants came first, then ocean animals, then land animals, and finally man, just as science has discovered.
Genesis 1

Would not a "primitive" man, making stuff up assume that God created everything basically at once? Is it AGAIN coincidence that he got the order of life's appearance on earth correct, even listing earlier species first? How would he know that fish predate earthworms? The list of things the author of Genesis "just happened" to get right is far more than can be explained by chance.

6. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth's crust contained millions of tons of water.
Gen 7:11 - ....the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of Heaven were opened.

For years atheists argued that there was not enough water on the Earth to make the flood story true. Now we find that there is more water in the Earth's crust than in all the Earth's oceans. How did the author of Genesis know this? If he was making the story up, why would he think of mentioning that the flood was aided by water that came OUT OF THE EARTH? Coincidence again?

7. The author of Genesis knew that originally there was only one gender.
Gen 2:18 - And the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Would not a made up story by a primitive man have God create men and women separately and at the same time? Yet we see that the primitive man is correct by science again. He knew that the second gender came out of the original gender, and was not created separately. Science has wrestled with the necessity of different gender sex for ages. Science has caught up with the Bible.

8. The author of Genesis knew that the universe began with a cataclysmic explosion of light.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

Of course, science illiterates do not know every form of EM radiation is light. Because they can only see a small spectrum of that light, they think that small spectrum is all that light is. UV rays, X-Rays, Gamma rays, radio waves, cosmic waves are all forms of "light". The primitive author of Genesis knew this, it took the rest of us 6,000 years to figure it out.

9. The author of Genesis knew that "Day" and "Night" did not need to be Sol-centric.
Gen 1:13 - And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Now that we have traveled (vicariously through space telescopes), to other solar systems, we know that day and night can refer to other stars and can have different lengths depending on the orbits of planets around those suns. So in Genesis we had days and nights before the sun was mentioned. Days and nights with a reference to other than our sun? Is that a primitive concept?

10. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth began with one land mass and one ocean.
Gen 1:9 - And God said, "Let the water under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear."

Amazing is it not? How would the author of Genesis know this? Was it a guess? The study of plate tectonics and geography only recently discovered this. Yet the primitive man knew about it. Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.

You will hear the more science-illiterate ones say that Genesis reads like a fairy tale. But that is because due to their ignorance, SCIENCE reads like a fairy tale to them.

What is even more amazing is the same people who understood creation ended up crucifying the very son of the Creator for his blasphemous lies and lunacy. Irony of ironies.

Yes, the Bible points that out in the Book of John. But that isn't more amazing.

What is even more amazing is Christians no longer marvel at creation but worship a dead Jewish corpse nailed to a wooden cross who was crucified to atone for their sins. So what began as a marvel of creation somehow turned out perverted and sinful so much so that an act of human sacrifice (sacrifice of the creators son Jesus) was necessary to restore the future.

As they say in the south, "You can't do anything about stupid."

Paradoxically Christians know more about sin than the world they live in. The bible did not enhance our knowledge about the universe we live in and left that to science. But science cannot trace the origins of sin and there rests the profundity.

You are uninformed of science and disbelieve the Bible. Talk about profound ignorance!

I just said it is through science we learn about the uninverse not the bible.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 6:27:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 4:32:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/12/2016 12:49:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 8:46:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

...

4. The author of Genesis knew that the atmosphere of the Earth formed after its creation. He knew that there was no rain until the atmosphere formed.
Gen 2:5 - "....for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the Earth.....
Gen 2:6 - "But there went up a mist from the Earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."


How would the author of Genesis know this unless he was told? Why would a "primitive" man even think of the atmosphere as a thing separate from the earth, or that it affected weather? In all their questions about Genesis, you'll never hear an atheist ask about such things.

What is easier for you to imagine: the Earth without an atmosphere or an atmosphere without the Earth?

A man of 6,000 years ago would have no concept of an atmosphere.

As we know it, no. But, a more primitive concept could constitute the air and wind and whatnot. But you got that word out of the verses, somehow.

Plus, "mist" doesn"t allude to an atmosphere; if anything significantly more that imagining mist from like a waterfall, it would be evaporation. Even that is quite a stretch given the context.

I did not say mist was an atmosphere. The author is trying to show how there could be plants when there had been no rain. By the time the author wrote this, there was an atmosphere and rain. How did a primitive man know that in the Earth's formation, rain would not happen immediately?

Then which words in the verse did you draw that conclusion from? And could you possibly know what the author was "trying to show" without having access to the author?

5. The author of Genesis knew that plants came first, then ocean animals, then land animals, and finally man, just as science has discovered.
Genesis 1

Would not a "primitive" man, making stuff up assume that God created everything basically at once? Is it AGAIN coincidence that he got the order of life's appearance on earth correct, even listing earlier species first? How would he know that fish predate earthworms? The list of things the author of Genesis "just happened" to get right is far more than can be explained by chance.

Why? Different steps accentuate the differences, and makes for a more appealing story or explanation. For instance, the Hindu creation account says Brahma creates human beings and all life. All different species come out from different parts of Brahma"s body. He created man as the first of the animals and the strongest. He created him from his own soul. One of the stories mentions that Brahma splits himself into two to create male and female (http://www.ancient-origins.net...). We often separate ourselves as superior and special.

---

What you are doing is refusing to think critically and are succumbing to confirmation bias. You, being familiar with modern knowledge, are formulating possible interpretations to suit that knowledge while simultaneously disregarding all plausible explanations that would indicate otherwise. You already have your conclusion and you are seeking means to support it, here. Imagination is a powerful asset to mankind but it becomes a problem if not kept in check. That's where critical thinking comes in, and why it's so vital. Take this passage from the Quran, for instance:

"O company of jinn and mankind, if you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass. You will not pass except by authority [from Allah ]." - Surat Al-Rahman 55:33

This verse is commonly interpreted as a prediction that humans will fly, being attributed to modern aviation. Do you believe that the Quran is wholly correct? If not, then what do you make of this passage in regard to this alleged prediction?
I don't believe the Quran is wholly correct, but that doesn't mean that it, or other similar books do not make accurate predictions.

The creation incident in the book of Genesis is an historical account conveyed to a human who could not have had that knowledge. The other creation accounts presented as 10 myths in a link that was provided (as an example) could be distortions of other accounts of creation, or messages conveyed by a non-human (spiritual) entity only giving partial truths, or no truth. I think most religions that involve spiritual entities understand that along with truth, there is also purposeful deception.

If you can move past the notion that atheism and evolution are not a product of elitist critical thinking, and evolution could be listed as #11 on that list given in a prior post, then critical thinking could extend to which, if any of the creation accounts associated with a religion or spirituality would more likely be true. But you won't do that because you believe that there's this elitist group that has figured it all out for past, present, and future civilizations.

It may help to remember, no civilization considered themselves ancient. They were all in their minds enlightened. If mankind survives for a significant period of time longer, we will eventually become an ancient civilization. And probably our ideas and intellect will be considered primitive.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 7:26:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 6:27:14 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/12/2016 4:32:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
What you are doing is refusing to think critically and are succumbing to confirmation bias. You, being familiar with modern knowledge, are formulating possible interpretations to suit that knowledge while simultaneously disregarding all plausible explanations that would indicate otherwise. You already have your conclusion and you are seeking means to support it, here. Imagination is a powerful asset to mankind but it becomes a problem if not kept in check. That's where critical thinking comes in, and why it's so vital. Take this passage from the Quran, for instance:

"O company of jinn and mankind, if you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass. You will not pass except by authority [from Allah ]." - Surat Al-Rahman 55:33

This verse is commonly interpreted as a prediction that humans will fly, being attributed to modern aviation. Do you believe that the Quran is wholly correct? If not, then what do you make of this passage in regard to this alleged prediction?

I don't believe the Quran is wholly correct, but that doesn't mean that it, or other similar books do not make accurate predictions.

The key word would be "accurate", and such predictions would need to be specific in order to be considered. I could make a whole bunch of fuzzy and ambiguous predictions for the future that could easily be twisted to be perceived as correct.

The creation incident in the book of Genesis is an historical account conveyed to a human who could not have had that knowledge. The other creation accounts presented as 10 myths in a link that was provided (as an example) could be distortions of other accounts of creation, or messages conveyed by a non-human (spiritual) entity only giving partial truths, or no truth. I think most religions that involve spiritual entities understand that along with truth, there is also purposeful deception.

I don't see that any knowledge is been demonstrated in the verses of the Bible, just simple and vague statements that can be interpreted in any number of different ways by adding one's own understandings into them. Even if it actually is the case that the OP's conclusion is correct, there is no way to solidly affirm this conclusion from what's available, here.

If you can move past the notion that atheism and evolution are not a product of elitist critical thinking, and evolution could be listed as #11 on that list given in a prior post, then critical thinking could extend to which, if any of the creation accounts associated with a religion or spirituality would more likely be true. But you won't do that because you believe that there's this elitist group that has figured it all out for past, present, and future civilizations.

Skepticism applies to all claims, regardless of the source. It does not belong to atheism nor evolution, nor has anything stemming from them been exempt from it. Since those concepts don't have any bearing on this topic, I won't go any further.

It may help to remember, no civilization considered themselves ancient. They were all in their minds enlightened. If mankind survives for a significant period of time longer, we will eventually become an ancient civilization. And probably our ideas and intellect will be considered primitive.

Absolutely, I agree.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 12:13:12 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 3:47:03 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/12/2016 12:49:26 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

When I first read that, and got up off the floor, I began to think about things that could be described as "without form, and void..." and could not come up with "gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid and finally cooled and hardened into rock." Then, I asked several other people the first thing that popped into their heads after hearing "without form, and void..." and they too came up with even more examples, again, none of them even remotely resembling "gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid and finally cooled and hardened into rock."

So, then I wondered, how in tarnation does one come up with "gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid and finally cooled and hardened into rock" after hearing the phrase, "without form, and void..." when there are so many more answers?

Notice he posts none of them here?

Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.

Seriously E, my mind is boggling at what you wrote there, yes, it's scary, no, it isn't reasonable.

Ok, as usual, we will simply take your word for it. You never need support for your claims.

You will hear the more science-illiterate ones say that Genesis reads like a fairy tale. But that is because due to their ignorance, SCIENCE reads like a fairy tale to them.

You get top marks for spinning the best fairy tale, this day, E.

Ah, one of the more science-illiterate ones. Welcome.

First he describes the Earth as formless, then he says the Spirit of God moves over the face of the waters..... still later he says dry land appears.

Too bad God didn't have the author write a volume for you on planet formation. That would have been so much more effective towards God's purpose of salvation.

Vast Underwater Ocean Trapped Beneath Earth's Crust ...
http://www.natureworldnews.com...

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth
http://www.livescience.com...

Who knew?

The author of Genesis knew.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You are serious. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You've certainly sunk to new lows of dishonesty and delusion, E. By far, the silliest thing you've ever posted.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 6:41:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2016 7:26:20 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/12/2016 6:27:14 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/12/2016 4:32:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
What you are doing is refusing to think critically and are succumbing to confirmation bias. You, being familiar with modern knowledge, are formulating possible interpretations to suit that knowledge while simultaneously disregarding all plausible explanations that would indicate otherwise. You already have your conclusion and you are seeking means to support it, here. Imagination is a powerful asset to mankind but it becomes a problem if not kept in check. That's where critical thinking comes in, and why it's so vital. Take this passage from the Quran, for instance:

"O company of jinn and mankind, if you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass. You will not pass except by authority [from Allah ]." - Surat Al-Rahman 55:33

This verse is commonly interpreted as a prediction that humans will fly, being attributed to modern aviation. Do you believe that the Quran is wholly correct? If not, then what do you make of this passage in regard to this alleged prediction?

I don't believe the Quran is wholly correct, but that doesn't mean that it, or other similar books do not make accurate predictions.

The key word would be "accurate", and such predictions would need to be specific in order to be considered. I could make a whole bunch of fuzzy and ambiguous predictions for the future that could easily be twisted to be perceived as correct.

I'm not sure what you mean by predictions as far as the creation account in Genesis, but I think you might be thinking along the lines of predictions Jesus made like:

Mat 24:6

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.


and

Mat 24:7

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, G4578 in divers places.


It could be argued that predicting earthquakes is a gimme as it's logical to assume they are an ongoing affair, however suggesting that wars between nations will continue until the end of man's days is a pretty strong claim. Wars between nations could easily come to a halt any time one nation takes rulership of the entire world (or known world at that time). It's not really a question of relinquishing wars due to humanitarianism. Most of the world want world peace, even if it means giving up sovereignty to another nation or world controlling government. One thing that could end the lavish lifestyle of the rich and powerful is a nuclear war that could wipe humanity off the planet. So on going wars in the context of these passages is not a gimme.

The creation incident in the book of Genesis is an historical account conveyed to a human who could not have had that knowledge. The other creation accounts presented as 10 myths in a link that was provided (as an example) could be distortions of other accounts of creation, or messages conveyed by a non-human (spiritual) entity only giving partial truths, or no truth. I think most religions that involve spiritual entities understand that along with truth, there is also purposeful deception.

I don't see that any knowledge is been demonstrated in the verses of the Bible, just simple and vague statements that can be interpreted in any number of different ways by adding one's own understandings into them. Even if it actually is the case that the OP's conclusion is correct, there is no way to solidly affirm this conclusion from what's available, here.

It would be kind of tough to claim there is no knowledge demonstrated in these verses if one doesn't understand the verses. They may appear vague, but that doesn't mean they are vague.
If you can move past the notion that atheism and evolution are not a product of elitist critical thinking, and evolution could be listed as #11 on that list given in a prior post, then critical thinking could extend to which, if any of the creation accounts associated with a religion or spirituality would more likely be true. But you won't do that because you believe that there's this elitist group that has figured it all out for past, present, and future civilizations.

Skepticism applies to all claims, regardless of the source. It does not belong to atheism nor evolution, nor has anything stemming from them been exempt from it. Since those concepts don't have any bearing on this topic, I won't go any further.

The discussion could get pretty deep (whether atheism and/or evolution is left out or not).
It may help to remember, no civilization considered themselves ancient. They were all in their minds enlightened. If mankind survives for a significant period of time longer, we will eventually become an ancient civilization. And probably our ideas and intellect will be considered primitive.

Absolutely, I agree.
bulproof
Posts: 25,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 8:16:34 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:03:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Of course the atheist will dismiss these. The implications are too scary.
What is scary is that someone can convince themselves of this tripe and publicly admits to it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 8:52:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2016 4:29:49 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/12/2016 12:49:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:

1. The author of Genesis knew that stars were not the only source of light in the early universe.
Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

This is frankly amazing in that all they had to go on was that it was dark when the sun went away and bright again when it appeared. To write a story where there was light WITHOUT the sun must have perplexed them. But they were writing what was true, not what they had made up. SO they had to follow the facts even if it surpassed their knowledge at the time.

Why couldn"t they have identified light as a separate entity from the sun?

What "light" as a separate entity from the sun would a man living 6,000 years ago mention? Fire? Or are you surprised he didn't mention a halogen flashlight?

What's wrong with fire; is it not a source of light?

A source to set Day and Night by? A fire which would rival the sun in brightness? Are you serious? Was the fire on Earth? Would the fire move when there was night? For the life of me, why should atheism preclude logic?

And why would people not be able to notice that light could exist even when the sun (or moon) wasn't visible?

He did notice it and said so. Atheists then took exception because they claimed there was no sun. The Bible was correct.

It takes a great leap to attribute this as necessarily knowledge, especially with such a simply-worded verse.

If a primitive person was making up a story, would he record the sun as shining on the 3rd day or the first? The fact is that the writings of a primitive man about the creation of the Heaven and Earth jive with modern science! The only way to "find" error is to play games with the interpretation of the verses. One would think such writing would be obviously rife with scientific error.

In Genesis 1:16 ("God made two great lights"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."), so the sun was obviously not believed to be the only source of light

And yet the atheist made an entire thread about how could there be light without the sun! Bible right again.

What? If you are talking about my response, here, I never said that

Not you, a fellow atheist.

I said that it is very easy to imagine the presence of light without an apparent source.

Yes, it is very easy for YOU, with your 2016 scientific knowledge. Would it have been so easy for a primitive man whose only reference for light was the sun and a burning stick?

(and were wrong about the "lesser light" being a light).

Have you ever used the term "moonlight"? Were you wrong? And do you think while telling the creation story was the time and place to diverge into a primer on light reflection?

It is clearly described as a "great light" along with the sun. The term "moonlight" could have equally arisen from when people thought the moon emitted light and persisted despite discovering it was false because it still adequately conveyed the intended concept. We have such terms throughout our society, such as with the attribution of emotions and love to the heart, even though we know, today, that the brain is wholly responsible for these.

Then taking issue with him calling the moon the "lesser light" is disingenuous. He was describing the process of formation and placement, not giving a scientific discourse on the nature of radiation.

BTW - you missed my point about the authors never mentioning the other countless stars in our universe as light sources.

Just as you have "missed" virtually every question I've asked you. First, they were to far away to be references for day and night. Second, the author didn't have to. Why would he have to mention them? It was an atheist poster who claimed that there would be no light. The author did say God created the "Heavens", which we know are comprised of stars.

And how exactly do you know that they wrote about what they knew and not what they made up?

Because they were right too often, and were right about things that would not be discovered by science for thousands of years. They knew about things it was not possible to guess about. Guessing that the Earth was first a formless gas in space that coalesced into a planet? 6,000 years ago? Are you kidding me?

They were right according to the way you are interpreting these very simple words and extracting elaborate meanings from them.

The Earth was formless. How would you interpret that differently? How would he know that? It didn't rain on early Earth, how would you interpret that differently?

That which you are claiming that they could not of guessed about is pretty true, but there is nothing in those passages that suggest that is exactly what they had in mind.

So when the author says during the flood that water also came out of the Earth, what do YOU think he meant? This verse was laughed at by atheists until we found that there is an ocean of water in the Earth. How could he have just been "guessing" correct on so many things? On so many complex concepts? How would he know that in the beginning there was only one land mass and one ocean? The orld had not even been mapped yet!

Is it unfathomable that one could imagine the presence of light without a visible light source?

6,000 years ago? Yes. Why, it was only a few dozen years ago that we figured out that it was not evil spirits which caused meat to rot.

Why? On a day of overcast, the light would be present without a visible source. Why would it be so hard to imagine a light without a visible source? You know in t the past, many people thought that light originated from the eye, itself.

My point is that for the author to claim "evening and morning" before seeing the sun would be highly unlikely for a primitive man of 6,000 years ago. And he mentions "light" BEFORE the creation of the sun. If you disagree, ok, but I think it is reasonable.

2. The author of Genesis knew that the Earth formed as a gas first, then a molten liquid, and finally cooled and hardened into rock.
Gen 1:2 - And the Earth was without form, and void...

This is amazing in that concepts like this were way beyond the "primitive" minds of 6,000 years ago. Science fairly recently learned these things. Does it seem reasonable that a primitive man making up a creation story would describe the very process of planet formation in space of gas coalescing and heating into a molten liquid?

How do you extrapolate that from the few words that were there? And how does the rest of the verse fit into this: ...and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."? The eight words that you have here do not at all describe a process.

Should he have spent 20 pages on the process of planet formation when the process was not the point? It was first a formless gas, devoid of life. Then as it contracts it heats up to molten lava. To the author, a primitive, it appears to be a ball of one gigantic ocean. So he calls it "waters". Do you expect a guy who has never seen or heard of an airplane to call it a bird or an F-16?

No, but he wouldn't have had to.

Why not? If he was telling a story of how the first white man came into his village to save them from an approaching forest fire, why would he need to waste time on the nature of the flight vehicle? He isn't describing airplanes. He does not intend to be scientific.

It is highly silly to claim years later that the story is untrue because the author did not note that the flight vehicle was a turbojet F-16!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 1:11:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 6:41:35 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/12/2016 7:26:20 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/12/2016 6:27:14 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/12/2016 4:32:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
What you are doing is refusing to think critically and are succumbing to confirmation bias. You, being familiar with modern knowledge, are formulating possible interpretations to suit that knowledge while simultaneously disregarding all plausible explanations that would indicate otherwise. You already have your conclusion and you are seeking means to support it, here. Imagination is a powerful asset to mankind but it becomes a problem if not kept in check. That's where critical thinking comes in, and why it's so vital. Take this passage from the Quran, for instance:

"O company of jinn and mankind, if you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass. You will not pass except by authority [from Allah ]." - Surat Al-Rahman 55:33

This verse is commonly interpreted as a prediction that humans will fly, being attributed to modern aviation. Do you believe that the Quran is wholly correct? If not, then what do you make of this passage in regard to this alleged prediction?

I don't believe the Quran is wholly correct, but that doesn't mean that it, or other similar books do not make accurate predictions.

The key word would be "accurate", and such predictions would need to be specific in order to be considered. I could make a whole bunch of fuzzy and ambiguous predictions for the future that could easily be twisted to be perceived as correct.

I'm not sure what you mean by predictions as far as the creation account in Genesis, but I think you might be thinking along the lines of predictions Jesus made like:

By prediction, I mean the author's description of something about the observable world that he could not possibly know by the means that were available to him. I don't see "prediction" as being totally synonymous with "prophecy", because the latter pertains to events that will come to pass in the future.

Mat 24:6

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.


and

Mat 24:7

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, G4578 in divers places.


It could be argued that predicting earthquakes is a gimme as it's logical to assume they are an ongoing affair, however suggesting that wars between nations will continue until the end of man's days is a pretty strong claim. Wars between nations could easily come to a halt any time one nation takes rulership of the entire world (or known world at that time). It's not really a question of relinquishing wars due to humanitarianism. Most of the world want world peace, even if it means giving up sovereignty to another nation or world controlling government. One thing that could end the lavish lifestyle of the rich and powerful is a nuclear war that could wipe humanity off the planet. So on going wars in the context of these passages is not a gimme.

But from the standpoint of an author in those times, life was brutal and he would have had no capacity to envision the technological advancements of modern man in terms of both preventing war or improving our killing potential (i.e. nuclear weapons). Why would a person not assume that things would go on as he experiences them with little change. You said yourself that people tend to see their own time and culture as the pinnacle.

The creation incident in the book of Genesis is an historical account conveyed to a human who could not have had that knowledge. The other creation accounts presented as 10 myths in a link that was provided (as an example) could be distortions of other accounts of creation, or messages conveyed by a non-human (spiritual) entity only giving partial truths, or no truth. I think most religions that involve spiritual entities understand that along with truth, there is also purposeful deception.

I don't see that any knowledge is been demonstrated in the verses of the Bible, just simple and vague statements that can be interpreted in any number of different ways by adding one's own understandings into them. Even if it actually is the case that the OP's conclusion is correct, there is no way to solidly affirm this conclusion from what's available, here.

It would be kind of tough to claim there is no knowledge demonstrated in these verses if one doesn't understand the verses. They may appear vague, but that doesn't mean they are vague.

Then those are the passages that should be focused on; not the simple, vague ones that the OP is highlighting. I would find it much more plausible if it mentioned, for instance, "..the ## worlds of the heavens that circle the sun", where ## cites the actual number of planets or significant bodies that orbit the earth. That would be more acceptable as an expression of knowledge even though it was still being expressed in a simple matter.

If you can move past the notion that atheism and evolution are not a product of elitist critical thinking, and evolution could be listed as #11 on that list given in a prior post, then critical thinking could extend to which, if any of the creation accounts associated with a religion or spirituality would more likely be true. But you won't do that because you believe that there's this elitist group that has figured it all out for past, present, and future civilizations.

Skepticism applies to all claims, regardless of the source. It does not belong to atheism nor evolution, nor has anything stemming from them been exempt from it. Since those concepts don't have any bearing on this topic, I won't go any further.

The discussion could get pretty deep (whether atheism and/or evolution is left out or not).
It may help to remember, no civilization considered themselves ancient. They were all in their minds enlightened. If mankind survives for a significant period of time longer, we will eventually become an ancient civilization. And probably our ideas and intellect will be considered primitive.

Absolutely, I agree.