Total Posts:377|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reasons to Believe Creation Model

born_a_spirit
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 11:54:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:15:34 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 10:51:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

No, he is saying a model is stronger than a theory, which is wrong. He does that because he knows only to well he can't offer a hypothesis, thus leading to a theory. His hypothesis cannot be tested and has no capacity to be falsifiable. He's forced to use a model and then trumps it up as if models are going to support his assertions. Doesn't work that way.
Please read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Uhuh.

I am wondering how you find it ridiculous. Romans 8 states that all of creation is subject to law of decay. That is in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics. This idea is not dependent on the other two laws being mentioned.

Sorry, you better read Romans 8 again, you'll not find the word "law" in there that refers to a law of decay. And if it did, where is the formula? A law requires one.
I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures. : :

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 11:59:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2015 11:26:10 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:22:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Is there no one-page text summary? I don't want the advertising. Where's the outline?
Yes, I already gave it to you:
http://www.reasons.org...

That's not a superior model of cosmogenesis; it's Genesis apologetics: reinterpreting Genesis to be as much like modern science as possible, while providing an incoherent account of biogenesis full of injected and unnecessary miracles in a detail not specifically predicted by Genesis, while nevertheless failing to adequately explain the biology we actually have.

No reputable scientist would ever do that with their model, Ty. If a model doesn't literally and specifically predict an event, but some other coherent and accurate model does, your model gets superseded. That's how Newton's mechanics got replaced by Relativity.

As a literal account of anything, Genesis is false, dead, and never to be resurrected. Trying to make it a poetic account of cosmogenesis or anything else invokes the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.

Nobody with any scientific integrity ever works that way, and you shouldn't either.
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 12:03:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2015 6:15:49 PM, tstor wrote:
DanneJeRusse and I were discussing this model very briefly in another thread and he suggested that I make a thread dedicated to the topic. I think that this is a good idea because I would like to learn more about the model myself as I am rather new to it. So please feel free to express any opinions, comments, criticisms, etc. that you may have on the model. Here is a link to the Reasons to Believe website:
http://www.reasons.org...

Here is a link to their creation model:
http://www.reasons.org...

Here is a nice video that I found very informative:

Description:
In this event, held at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana present an overview of their model and predictions and two UCSB professors, Dr. Harry Nelson and Dr. Kevin Plaxco, present their responses. The four presentations are followed by about 45 minutes of lively discussion between the audience and the panel of four speakers. The topics covered include arguments and evidences from mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology and anthropology.

Thanks for the links. Now, i just have one problem; it's all about Christianity. Don't get me wrong. I think there are truths in the Bible; there are arguments that i like to use that are correlative as well. However, the Bible is not the one truth and i don't mean that offensively. The Bible has many great elements, but so does Islam, Buddism, Paganism, Pantheism, Solipsism, etc. Everything we know about religion or belief, fits into one idea ... A leap of logic that our minds can survive death. At this point, to see things as clear as possible, one must humble themselves to see it everyone's way. Spirituality doesn't stop advancing, there is not just one truth that applies to all, but there is one truth that can incorporate all ... the truth to what the observer views as paradise. Once you can see this, you will understand that there are many answers. All of these debates about religion are proving, to me, that spirituality is probable. However, spirituality has no label ... As much as i respect religion, i don't respect their ego. I don't have to sit here and be proud to say i am Christian or Muslim. Actually, you are the most spiritual when you are nervous to say it. Bc you would be right to be nervous, for there are always new questions.

It is very simple. Look at humanity, actually look at youtube. How many likes are on your video, and how many dislikes? The people that like it believe it, the ones that don't dislike it. Does it have anything to do with the video however? Well, sort of. The ones that understand it are most likely liking it bc it fits into their belief. The ones that dislike may be just trolls. Some may understand it and that's why they dislike it. My point is, not everyone sees the same. If your video was more of a fantasy game type thing, this would be more interesting. The people that like that stuff, see themselves as a character, or a player in that type of world. The ones that dislike it see it different. But, do is mean the ones that dislike it don't exist, are doomed, are idiots, so on; no. It means they prefer something else that they can relate to. Once you can see humanity and accept everyone for what they are; spirituality will be more clear. Some pray to Lord of the Rings and some pray to Harry potter. I also intuitively believe the characters in the Abrahamic religions believe, see and have wrote about this. The cherry picking is what's throwing us off, the egos are throwing us off, not being able to accept everyone is our sin and keeping us from the truth. A truth that is always hiding behind a veil.
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 12:13:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 12:03:34 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Thanks for the links. Now, i just have one problem; it's all about Christianity. Don't get me wrong. I think there are truths in the Bible; there are arguments that i like to use that are correlative as well. However, the Bible is not the one truth and i don't mean that offensively. The Bible has many great elements, but so does Islam, Buddism, Paganism, Pantheism, Solipsism, etc. Everything we know about religion or belief, fits into one idea ... A leap of logic that our minds can survive death. At this point, to see things as clear as possible, one must humble themselves to see it everyone's way. Spirituality doesn't stop advancing, there is not just one truth that applies to all, but there is one truth that can incorporate all ... the truth to what the observer views as paradise. Once you can see this, you will understand that there are many answers. All of these debates about religion are proving, to me, that spirituality is probable. However, spirituality has no label ... As much as i respect religion, i don't respect their ego. I don't have to sit here and be proud to say i am Christian or Muslim. Actually, you are the most spiritual when you are nervous to say it. Bc you would be right to be nervous, for there are always new questions.
I appreciate your comments, I really do. I am not going to stir up an argument on why I think that Christianity is true opposed to other faiths, as that would derail the thread in the end, but thank you for sharing your thoughts.

It is very simple. Look at humanity, actually look at youtube. How many likes are on your video, and how many dislikes? The people that like it believe it, the ones that don't dislike it. Does it have anything to do with the video however? Well, sort of. The ones that understand it are most likely liking it bc it fits into their belief. The ones that dislike may be just trolls. Some may understand it and that's why they dislike it. My point is, not everyone sees the same. If your video was more of a fantasy game type thing, this would be more interesting. The people that like that stuff, see themselves as a character, or a player in that type of world. The ones that dislike it see it different. But, do is mean the ones that dislike it don't exist, are doomed, are idiots, so on; no. It means they prefer something else that they can relate to. Once you can see humanity and accept everyone for what they are; spirituality will be more clear. Some pray to Lord of the Rings and some pray to Harry potter. I also intuitively believe the characters in the Abrahamic religions believe, see and have wrote about this. The cherry picking is what's throwing us off, the egos are throwing us off, not being able to accept everyone is our sin and keeping us from the truth. A truth that is always hiding behind a veil.
I have no issue accepting other people. I do not surround myself by other Christians. We all should be able to look past our theological differences and work together, I agree.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 12:13:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2015 11:59:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

That's not a superior model of cosmogenesis; it's Genesis apologetics: reinterpreting Genesis to be as much like modern science as possible, while providing an incoherent account of biogenesis full of injected and unnecessary miracles in a detail not specifically predicted by Genesis, while nevertheless failing to adequately explain the biology we actually have.
"reinterpreting Genesis to be as much like modern science as possible"
You say this like it is a bad thing. Is it not logical to interpret the Bible in light of new discoveries? This has always been the case with the Bible. That does not mean that it is not falsifiable. If it was discovered that the universe had no beginning, then the whole model would collapse on itself. As for your second part, do you care to give specific examples? I could be here all day trying to guess what parts of the model you are specifically referring to.

No reputable scientist would ever do that with their model, Ty. If a model doesn't literally and specifically predict an event, but some other coherent and accurate model does, your model gets superseded. That's how Newton's mechanics got replaced by Relativity.
Their model does predict events, so I fail to see the relevance of you bringing it up. Consider these three sources, though there are many others from them:
http://www.reasons.org...
http://www.reasons.org...
http://www.reasons.org... (audio format)

As a literal account of anything, Genesis is false, dead, and never to be resurrected. Trying to make it a poetic account of cosmogenesis or anything else invokes the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.

Nobody with any scientific integrity ever works that way, and you shouldn't either.
You seem pretty dead set in your ways, RuvDraba.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 12:32:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 12:13:41 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:03:34 AM, Outplayz wrote:

I appreciate your comments, I really do. I am not going to stir up an argument on why I think that Christianity is true opposed to other faiths, as that would derail the thread in the end, but thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Actually i beg to differ, this would not derail the thread topic. I am actually wanting you to dig into my mind to see why i say this. I know that sounds selfish in ways, but i feel that you should be challenging someone that understands spirituality (not bragging at all). I am trying to direct this to become a model of some sorts. Actually, i believe i am on the verge of figuring out a model that can make sense. I can't share all of it, but i would love to dig in your mind as well, bc you are a professional in your religion compared to me. Like i said, i have no problem with Christianity until it blinds. A written word is needed in this world, but for those that struggle and do not have the capacity to understand theology or philosophy. It is in the hands of people that do understand to make sense of it. Yet, look at the world. The people that have the capacity to understand it also see the power in it. Which would bring me to my first point i'd like to discuss with you. If you are using the Bible as a Creation Model, and are literally a Christian, you must except it is all the word of god/correct. My thought is, it is not all the word of god, and it doesn't lack its flaws. So, now we must think outside the box to create a model, this falls into spirituality. However, if i look at the Bible as metaphors/allegories, with some truths... i can say i literally believe it to the point i am at right now; yet, i can look at Islam the same way and believe it ... This way of thinking needs to be known to the world and analysed further... Right now, people are fighting over labels and words... not spirituality. So my question is ... can you fit every person's belief into this model?

I have no issue accepting other people. I do not surround myself by other Christians. We all should be able to look past our theological differences and work together, I agree.

That is exactly my intentions. I do not want to argue, i just want to see if we can put something together that would make a logical mind think. Your religion and other religions ARE needed. Not for the wise, unfortunately for the immature and unwise. There is no pun intended there. I see this as a perfect structure. To see this as a perfect structure, it helps me understand why there are so many religions, and why there are so many different religions. All are right in what they were created for, but the wise will take the spiritual aspect and leave the stories. Do you see where i am coming from? All religions are right in regards to what they were created for?
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 12:33:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2015 6:15:49 PM, tstor wrote:
DanneJeRusse and I were discussing this model very briefly in another thread and he suggested that I make a thread dedicated to the topic. I think that this is a good idea because I would like to learn more about the model myself as I am rather new to it. So please feel free to express any opinions, comments, criticisms, etc. that you may have on the model. Here is a link to the Reasons to Believe website:
http://www.reasons.org...

Here is a link to their creation model:
http://www.reasons.org...

Here is a nice video that I found very informative:

Description:
In this event, held at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana present an overview of their model and predictions and two UCSB professors, Dr. Harry Nelson and Dr. Kevin Plaxco, present their responses. The four presentations are followed by about 45 minutes of lively discussion between the audience and the panel of four speakers. The topics covered include arguments and evidences from mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology and anthropology.

Ty, this is the only model which the OT consistently refers to:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.au...

You will find scattered references to all of these components of Hebrew cosmology throughout the OT. Most of it was borrowed from their neighbours. To pretend otherwise is to kid oneself.

Here's a nicer version of this same model: http://www.internetmonk.com...

Does this model bear any relationship to reality?
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 12:34:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2015 11:54:53 PM, born_a_spirit wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:15:34 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 10:51:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

No, he is saying a model is stronger than a theory, which is wrong. He does that because he knows only to well he can't offer a hypothesis, thus leading to a theory. His hypothesis cannot be tested and has no capacity to be falsifiable. He's forced to use a model and then trumps it up as if models are going to support his assertions. Doesn't work that way.
Please read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Uhuh.

I am wondering how you find it ridiculous. Romans 8 states that all of creation is subject to law of decay. That is in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics. This idea is not dependent on the other two laws being mentioned.

Sorry, you better read Romans 8 again, you'll not find the word "law" in there that refers to a law of decay. And if it did, where is the formula? A law requires one.
I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures. : :

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

Hey Brad, how's it hangin, dude?
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
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
born_a_spirit
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 12:43:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 12:34:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:54:53 PM, born_a_spirit wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:15:34 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 10:51:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

No, he is saying a model is stronger than a theory, which is wrong. He does that because he knows only to well he can't offer a hypothesis, thus leading to a theory. His hypothesis cannot be tested and has no capacity to be falsifiable. He's forced to use a model and then trumps it up as if models are going to support his assertions. Doesn't work that way.
Please read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Uhuh.

I am wondering how you find it ridiculous. Romans 8 states that all of creation is subject to law of decay. That is in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics. This idea is not dependent on the other two laws being mentioned.

Sorry, you better read Romans 8 again, you'll not find the word "law" in there that refers to a law of decay. And if it did, where is the formula? A law requires one.
I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures. : :

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

Hey Brad, how's it hangin, dude? : :

Life is awesome my friend, especially when I know where it all came from. Don't let those Christians give you too bad a time. They simply don't understand anything but their false deity named Jesus.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:06:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 12:32:52 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Actually i beg to differ, this would not derail the thread topic. I am actually wanting you to dig into my mind to see why i say this. I know that sounds selfish in ways, but i feel that you should be challenging someone that understands spirituality (not bragging at all). I am trying to direct this to become a model of some sorts. Actually, i believe i am on the verge of figuring out a model that can make sense. I can't share all of it, but i would love to dig in your mind as well, bc you are a professional in your religion compared to me. Like i said, i have no problem with Christianity until it blinds. A written word is needed in this world, but for those that struggle and do not have the capacity to understand theology or philosophy. It is in the hands of people that do understand to make sense of it. Yet, look at the world. The people that have the capacity to understand it also see the power in it. Which would bring me to my first point i'd like to discuss with you. If you are using the Bible as a Creation Model, and are literally a Christian, you must except it is all the word of god/correct. My thought is, it is not all the word of god, and it doesn't lack its flaws. So, now we must think outside the box to create a model, this falls into spirituality. However, if i look at the Bible as metaphors/allegories, with some truths... i can say i literally believe it to the point i am at right now; yet, i can look at Islam the same way and believe it ... This way of thinking needs to be known to the world and analysed further... Right now, people are fighting over labels and words... not spirituality. So my question is ... can you fit every person's belief into this model?
No, I cannot fit everyone into it. Adherents of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam could follow this model, but that is about it. The creation account in the Bible is not at all similar to those of other faiths.

That is exactly my intentions. I do not want to argue, i just want to see if we can put something together that would make a logical mind think. Your religion and other religions ARE needed. Not for the wise, unfortunately for the immature and unwise. There is no pun intended there. I see this as a perfect structure. To see this as a perfect structure, it helps me understand why there are so many religions, and why there are so many different religions. All are right in what they were created for, but the wise will take the spiritual aspect and leave the stories. Do you see where i am coming from? All religions are right in regards to what they were created for?
Yes, I believe Mormons take a very similar approach. They believe that all religions teach partial truths and have had partial revelations from Elohim, but their faith is ultimately the full truth. Though the Bible makes it clear:
"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [NIV] (Matthew 7:14)
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:06:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 12:33:09 AM, dee-em wrote:

Ty, this is the only model which the OT consistently refers to:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.au...
I have to disagree. There is simply so much more to it, the author of the article clearly is very narrow minded on the subject. However, I will take the time to discuss each point he raises:
1) Borrowed Ideas
I am not going to spend a whole lot of time on this topic because there are many valuable resources out there that explain it better than I ever could, a few of which I will give you the links to. Though let me just pick one of his three nations listed.

Here is what Wikipedia says about the elements in Egyptian creation accounts:

"The different creation myths have some elements in common. They all held that the world had arisen out of the lifeless waters of chaos, called Nu. They also included a pyramid-shaped mound, called the benben, which was the first thing to emerge from the waters. These elements were likely inspired by the flooding of the Nile River each year; the receding floodwaters left fertile soil in their wake, and the Egyptians may have equated this with the emergence of life from the primeval chaos. The imagery of the pyramidal mound derived from the highest mounds of earth emerging as the river receded.

The sun was also closely associated with creation, and it was said to have first risen from the mound, as the general sun-god Ra or as the god Khepri, who represented the newly-risen sun. There were many versions of the sun's emergence, and it was said to have emerged directly from the mound or from a lotus flower that grew from the mound, in the form of a heron, falcon, scarab beetle, or human child.

Another common element of Egyptian cosmogonies is the familiar figure of the cosmic egg, a substitute for the primeval waters or the primeval mound. One variant of the cosmic egg version teaches that the sun god, as primeval power, emerged from the primeval mound, which itself stood in the chaos of the primeval sea."

Other than this sounding nothing like the creation account(s) in the Bible, there are also some very fundamental differences. The major one is that they propose matter, time, etc. already existed during the creation period. The Bible makes it clear that was not the case.

http://booksnthoughts.com...
http://ancientroadpublications.com...

2) World is Flat with Pillars to Hold the Sky
Job 26:11: "The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke."
Job 37:18: "can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"
While that may seem convincing at face value, there is no reason to believe that Job is actually describing any real facts. Similar to when the Bible says "corners of the earth", it would be ridiculous to interpret that as meaning there are literally four corners. It was simply an expression to make a point. Even people today say "four corners of the earth", does that mean they are inherently part of the flat earth society? Not at all. These were simple exaggerations and expressions used by Job to drive home a point.

3) Genesis 1:7
I will quote Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:
"While this is a popular description of what we daily see"namely, masses of running water congregated upon earth"s surface, and above a cloudland, into which the waters rise and float"it is not contrary to, but in accordance with, science. The atmosphere is the receptacle of the waters evaporated from the earth and ocean, and by means of electrical action it keeps these aqueous particles in a state of repulsion, and forms clouds, which the winds carry in their bosom. So full of thoughtful contrivance and arrangement are the laws by which rain is formed and the earth watered, that they are constantly referred to in the Bible as the chief natural proof of God"s wisdom and goodness. (See Acts 14:17.) Moreover, were there not an open expanse next the earth, it would be wrapped in a perpetual mist, unvisited by sunshine. and the result would be such as is described in Genesis 2:5, that man could not exist on earth to till the ground. The use, however, of popular language and ideas is confessedly the method of Holy Scripture, and we must not force upon the writer knowledge which man was to gain for himself. Even if the writer supposed that the rains were poured down from an upper reservoir, it would be no more an argument against his being inspired than St. Mark"s expression, 'The sun did set' (Mark 1:32), disproves the inspiration of the Gospels. For the attainment of all such knowledge God has provided another way."

The rest of the points made are repetitive and do not really require any further explanation. You know how they say, a critic of Biblical literalism is more literal than the literalist.

You will find scattered references to all of these components of Hebrew cosmology throughout the OT. Most of it was borrowed from their neighbours. To pretend otherwise is to kid oneself.
Well, I guess I am kidding myself. So are most Biblical theologians I take it.

Here's a nicer version of this same model: http://www.internetmonk.com...

Does this model bear any relationship to reality?
Not at all. It also is the most extreme way of interpreting creation and the natural world. Nothing from Reasons to Believe contradicts the Bible. Similarly, nothing by Ken Ham or Kent Hovind contradicts the Bible (only modern science). You can have a tense view of it or a relaxed view.

You may find this useful:
http://www.reasons.org...
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:09:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 12:43:09 AM, born_a_spirit wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:34:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:54:53 PM, born_a_spirit wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:15:34 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 10:51:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

No, he is saying a model is stronger than a theory, which is wrong. He does that because he knows only to well he can't offer a hypothesis, thus leading to a theory. His hypothesis cannot be tested and has no capacity to be falsifiable. He's forced to use a model and then trumps it up as if models are going to support his assertions. Doesn't work that way.
Please read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Uhuh.

I am wondering how you find it ridiculous. Romans 8 states that all of creation is subject to law of decay. That is in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics. This idea is not dependent on the other two laws being mentioned.

Sorry, you better read Romans 8 again, you'll not find the word "law" in there that refers to a law of decay. And if it did, where is the formula? A law requires one.
I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures. : :

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

Hey Brad, how's it hangin, dude? : :

Life is awesome my friend, especially when I know where it all came from. Don't let those Christians give you too bad a time. They simply don't understand anything but their false deity named Jesus.

Thanks bud, I'll try to remember that.
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
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:17:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:06:29 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:32:52 AM, Outplayz wrote:

No, I cannot fit everyone into it. Adherents of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam could follow this model, but that is about it. The creation account in the Bible is not at all similar to those of other faiths.

That is when you compare words. They are not the same bc religion is comparing words from others that were located in a different part of the world. Looking at it as not every word is true can help see this conclusion. "No" then, the model is flawed. This world does a fine job of fitting everyone into it. I guess the question that comes up here is ... are you sure there is only one other dimension called "heaven" or is there many that can fit every personality into another character/role in its reality?

Yes, I believe Mormons take a very similar approach. They believe that all religions teach partial truths and have had partial revelations from Elohim, but their faith is ultimately the full truth. Though the Bible makes it clear:
"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [NIV] (Matthew 7:14)

I enjoy my talks with the Mormons that visit my house every once and awhile. I had to tell them to stop, bc last time they came in a crew (like ten of them). Idk if they were liking what i was saying or they really thought i need saving Lol. Anyways, the speculation you mentioned the Mormons do is accurate in my opinion. "Their faith being the full truth" I can throw that out to power and money.

The verse you mentioned is interesting. I'm sure it is out of context, but what do i see from it? I see that, as it stands, as a metaphor to life in this reality. To me it speaks of self awareness. I believe the most self aware (spiritually and physically) become the most powerful within. It speaks to me as... respect the paradise you are in right now.
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:19:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:17:13 AM, Outplayz wrote:

That is when you compare words. They are not the same bc religion is comparing words from others that were located in a different part of the world. Looking at it as not every word is true can help see this conclusion. "No" then, the model is flawed. This world does a fine job of fitting everyone into it. I guess the question that comes up here is ... are you sure there is only one other dimension called "heaven" or is there many that can fit every personality into another character/role in its reality?
Can you clarify your question?

I enjoy my talks with the Mormons that visit my house every once and awhile. I had to tell them to stop, bc last time they came in a crew (like ten of them). Idk if they were liking what i was saying or they really thought i need saving Lol. Anyways, the speculation you mentioned the Mormons do is accurate in my opinion. "Their faith being the full truth" I can throw that out to power and money.

The verse you mentioned is interesting. I'm sure it is out of context, but what do i see from it? I see that, as it stands, as a metaphor to life in this reality. To me it speaks of self awareness. I believe the most self aware (spiritually and physically) become the most powerful within. It speaks to me as... respect the paradise you are in right now.
You can read all of Matthew 7 to see that it is in context. Let me be the first to tell you, I do not take verses out of context.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
born_a_spirit
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:20:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:09:37 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:43:09 AM, born_a_spirit wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:34:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:54:53 PM, born_a_spirit wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:15:34 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 10:51:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

No, he is saying a model is stronger than a theory, which is wrong. He does that because he knows only to well he can't offer a hypothesis, thus leading to a theory. His hypothesis cannot be tested and has no capacity to be falsifiable. He's forced to use a model and then trumps it up as if models are going to support his assertions. Doesn't work that way.
Please read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Uhuh.

I am wondering how you find it ridiculous. Romans 8 states that all of creation is subject to law of decay. That is in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics. This idea is not dependent on the other two laws being mentioned.

Sorry, you better read Romans 8 again, you'll not find the word "law" in there that refers to a law of decay. And if it did, where is the formula? A law requires one.
I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures. : :

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

Hey Brad, how's it hangin, dude? : :

Life is awesome my friend, especially when I know where it all came from. Don't let those Christians give you too bad a time. They simply don't understand anything but their false deity named Jesus.

Thanks bud, I'll try to remember that. : :

I know you don't have any problem dealing with them or me. Have a great day.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.
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
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:33:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.
Well, the Greek word "douleias", as used in Romans 8:21 can mean either figurative or literal slavery. Since we are talking about a concept, decay, then we can assume it is figurative. As Ross said, it describes the law of decay in that all creation will be freed from the figurative slavery of decay.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:39:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:33:56 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.
Well, the Greek word "douleias", as used in Romans 8:21 can mean either figurative or literal slavery. Since we are talking about a concept, decay, then we can assume it is figurative. As Ross said, it describes the law of decay in that all creation will be freed from the figurative slavery of decay.

But, you keep putting in the word 'law' when no such reference is there, why do you do that?
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
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:41:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 12:13:44 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:59:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
That's not a superior model of cosmogenesis; it's Genesis apologetics: reinterpreting Genesis to be as much like modern science as possible, while providing an incoherent account of biogenesis full of injected and unnecessary miracles in a detail not specifically predicted by Genesis, while nevertheless failing to adequately explain the biology we actually have.
"reinterpreting Genesis to be as much like modern science as possible"
You say this like it is a bad thing. Is it not logical to interpret the Bible in light of new discoveries?
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?

No, despite it being a common habit of Biblical apologists, that's not reasonable at all.

Unless you can show compelling evidence otherwise, it should be taken that men wrote the Bible to be understood by men of their own time -- i.e, men like themselves, in their own images and language. Certainly, that was the way those texts have been traditionally used, and there is no credible independent evidence otherwise. But assuming that very reasonable intention, ask yourself how you'd best explain the Big Bang Theory and evolution to a man of that time. Would you do it by copying the Babylonian myth of Enuma Elish, getting astronomy and terragenesis wrong, the sequence of events wrong and the origin of species totally wrong?

If you fail to apply that level of critical thought, then you're being incoherent, and selecting the evidence to which you'll be accountable, rather than doing as a real model should, and being accountable to all the evidence.

You also need to understand that unless you can independently demonstrate what the authors knew, constantly reinterpreting the text based on what you know but which they probably didn't, lacks integrity and is invalid. You're deliberately introducing your own bias into the process, and that bias creates methodological error that will invalidate reinterpretation after reinterpretation (as indeed has occurred.)

And yes, Biblical apologists do it all the time. But no other contestible intellectual endeavour does -- not science, engineering, accounting, history, law...

The only other people to play so cynically and mendaciously are politicians and other 'rainmakers', pretending omniscience to claim credit for events they couldn't forsee and didn't themselves bring about.

No reputable scientist would ever do that with their model, Ty. If a model doesn't literally and specifically predict an event, but some other coherent and accurate model does, your model gets superseded. That's how Newton's mechanics got replaced by Relativity.
Their model does predict events,

No, existing models predict events in meticulous detail. This account simply piggybacks on those events, and conjectures additional vague miracles . Doing so breaks multiple scientific principles for the development of models, including:
* Parsimony (assume nothing but what observation requires);
* Specificity (explain and justify mechanisms, and show what evidence they should leave behind);
* Relevance (relate what you're developing to existing work, and show what significant new findings it should predict); and
* Falsification (whatever you conjecture, show how it can be readily disproved);

This is just an elaborate God of the Gaps argument, Ty, and as invalid as constant theological reinterpretation. It's a struggle to keep belief permissible without doing as a real model should, and explain why an independent thinker (i.e. not simply a Christian) should hold that model in preference to any other accepted model.

As a literal account of anything, Genesis is false, dead, and never to be resurrected. Trying to make it a poetic account of cosmogenesis or anything else invokes the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
Nobody with any scientific integrity ever works that way, and you shouldn't either.
You seem pretty dead set in your ways, RuvDraba.
If you mean adhering to the principles of coherence, evidence, accountability and transparency when making arguments then yes, I am. Anything else lacks intellectual integrity and damages critical thought.

I believe that Ross' exposition is an attempt to see how much he can get away with. Since he's educated in postgraduate science from reputable institutions, he's well aware that he's abandoning accepted scientific methods, straining the definitions of words like 'model', messing with the parsimony, coherence and accountability by which genuine scientific theories are constructed, and hiding behind his qualifications to make it look authoritative in the eyes of the ignorant.

It's extremely cynical to do that, and there's no hope of having any of that guff published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal -- not because it's Christian, but because it's elaborate pseudoscience.

Sadly, I think this is pretty much the nadir of Creationist misrepresentation, Ty. I realise that at your age, it must be very confusing, and I don't blame you for at least entertaining it, especially given your interests and predispositions.

However, a cynic like Ross is making an intellectual victim of you, and I'm embarrassed that my generation has given such deceitful narcissists so much platform. So whatever scorn I may have for the writings of this disingenuous charlatan, please know that I also have sympathy and contrition for you.
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:47:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:19:54 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:17:13 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Can you clarify your question?

Sure. What i simply mean is that heaven is one reality. It has its rules and how to get there. If one lives in that reality they would expect to live how it is described: Beautiful, worry free, no evil, bliss etc. However, i may find another paradise to my liking. For instance, i would find it enjoyable to live in a reality were magic is real, sorta correlative to a Harry Potter type world. Now, for this world to be what it is, it will follow similar rules. It has to be a reality similar to the fantasy with magic. However, my reality would need opposition. It's convenient to me that their are characters in our reality now that would be willing to play the role of lord voldemort.

You can read all of Matthew 7 to see that it is in context. Let me be the first to tell you, I do not take verses out of context.

I wasn't saying you took it out of context, sorry if it came across that way. I meant i am taking it out of context, so i may be wrong. I just wanted to tell you how i felt about that verse. It would be interesting to me, since i haven't read that verse, if you told me i didn't fall out of context in what i said. That'd cool; i'm just using imagination here.
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:08:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:41:38 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

You say this like it is a bad thing. Is it not logical to interpret the Bible in light of new discoveries?
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit, common when you consider that it is reasonable for you to have a bias.

No, despite it being a common habit of Biblical apologists, that's not reasonable at all.
What you said is not reasonable, I agree.

Unless you can show compelling evidence otherwise, it should be taken that men wrote the Bible to be understood by men of their own time -- i.e, men like themselves, in their own images and language. Certainly, that was the way those texts have been traditionally used, and there is no credible independent evidence otherwise. But assuming that very reasonable intention, ask yourself how you'd best explain the Big Bang Theory and evolution to a man of that time. Would you do it by copying the Babylonian myth of Enuma Elish, getting astronomy and terragenesis wrong, the sequence of events wrong and the origin of species totally wrong?
I have shown you compelling evidence otherwise. In fact, I have given you a whole slew. I also gave you a resource that shows the problem, with your conclusion of Genesis = Enuma Elish.

If you fail to apply that level of critical thought, then you're being incoherent, and selecting the evidence to which you'll be accountable, rather than doing as a real model should, and being accountable to all the evidence.
Good thing that the Reasons to Believe model is accountable to all the evidence.

You also need to understand that unless you can independently demonstrate what the authors knew, constantly reinterpreting the text based on what you know but which they probably didn't, lacks integrity and is invalid. You're deliberately introducing your own bias into the process, and that bias creates methodological error that will invalidate reinterpretation after reinterpretation (as indeed has occurred.)
Well if you come to the conclusion hat the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then you would interpret the Bible based on modern scientific discoveries.

And yes, Biblical apologists do it all the time. But no other contestible intellectual endeavour does -- not science, engineering, accounting, history, law...
I am fairly sure we had a conversation about this before when I gave an excerpt from Charles Taze Russel's book.

The only other people to play so cynically and mendaciously are politicians and other 'rainmakers', pretending omniscience to claim credit for events they couldn't forsee and didn't themselves bring about.

Their model does predict events,

No, existing models predict events in meticulous detail. This account simply piggybacks on those events, and conjectures additional vague miracles . Doing so breaks multiple scientific principles for the development of models, including:
* Parsimony (assume nothing but what observation requires);
* Specificity (explain and justify mechanisms, and show what evidence they should leave behind);
* Relevance (relate what you're developing to existing work, and show what significant new findings it should predict); and
* Falsification (whatever you conjecture, show how it can be readily disproved);
Once again, I have to request that you provide what you are specifically referring to in the model. Otherwise I could be here all day guessing as to what you are talking about.

This is just an elaborate God of the Gaps argument, Ty, and as invalid as constant theological reinterpretation. It's a struggle to keep belief permissible without doing as a real model should, and explain why an independent thinker (i.e. not simply a Christian) should hold that model in preference to any other accepted model.
What do you know, the website addressed your criticism directly:
http://www.reasons.org...

You seem pretty dead set in your ways, RuvDraba.
If you mean adhering to the principles of coherence, evidence, accountability and transparency when making arguments then yes, I am. Anything else lacks intellectual integrity and damages critical thought.
That is not what I meant. You made a claim to knowledge that Genesis was false. Seems like a premature conclusion to come to.

I believe that Ross' exposition is an attempt to see how much he can get away with. Since he's educated in postgraduate science from reputable institutions, he's well aware that he's abandoning accepted scientific methods, straining the definitions of words like 'model', messing with the parsimony, coherence and accountability by which genuine scientific theories are constructed, and hiding behind his qualifications to make it look authoritative in the eyes of the ignorant.
Yet you give no specific examples to any of your claims. I do not know if you are choosing to be purposely vague or being intellectually dishonest with me. I will choose the first option because I have better respect for you than to assume the second. So what are you specifically referring to?

Addressing your claims one by one:
Scientific Method
http://www.reasons.org...
http://www.reasons.org... (audio format)
http://www.reasons.org... (video format)

Model
The definition is clearly not being strained at all. You will need to be more specific.

Parsimony
You will need to be more specific.

The last two points you raised also require more specification, you cannot leave them that vague and expect any detailed response. Though your last point was rather bold, so I hope you can back it up.

It's extremely cynical to do that, and there's no hope of having any of that guff published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal -- not because it's Christian, but because it's elaborate pseudoscience.
Once again, you need more specific examples from their model/website to backup your claim. In the meantime, you can chew on this:
http://www.reasons.org...
http://www.reasons.org...

Sadly, I think this is pretty much the nadir of Creationist misrepresentation, Ty. I realise that at your age, it must be very confusing, and I don't blame you for at least entertaining it, especially given your interests and predispositions.

However, a cynic like Ross is making an intellectual victim of you, and I'm embarrassed that my generation has given such deceitful narcissists so much platform. So whatever scorn I may have for the writings of this disingenuous charlatan, please know that I also have sympathy and contrition for you.
If you truly have "sympathy" for me, then show it. Give me the specifics. This entire time you have been making claims with no muscle behind them when it comes to the creation model and Hugh Ross.

I am going to prepare for bed now, but I am looking forward to continuing this tomorrow.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:08:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:39:52 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Well, the Greek word "douleias", as used in Romans 8:21 can mean either figurative or literal slavery. Since we are talking about a concept, decay, then we can assume it is figurative. As Ross said, it describes the law of decay in that all creation will be freed from the figurative slavery of decay.

But, you keep putting in the word 'law' when no such reference is there, why do you do that?
I am not saying that it is in the verse. I am saying that it describes the law.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:14:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:47:39 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Sure. What i simply mean is that heaven is one reality. It has its rules and how to get there. If one lives in that reality they would expect to live how it is described: Beautiful, worry free, no evil, bliss etc. However, i may find another paradise to my liking. For instance, i would find it enjoyable to live in a reality were magic is real, sorta correlative to a Harry Potter type world. Now, for this world to be what it is, it will follow similar rules. It has to be a reality similar to the fantasy with magic. However, my reality would need opposition. It's convenient to me that their are characters in our reality now that would be willing to play the role of lord voldemort.
I don't think you really clarified the question, but rather your position. Nonetheless, neither of us are going to heaven.

You can read all of Matthew 7 to see that it is in context. Let me be the first to tell you, I do not take verses out of context.

I wasn't saying you took it out of context, sorry if it came across that way. I meant i am taking it out of context, so i may be wrong. I just wanted to tell you how i felt about that verse. It would be interesting to me, since i haven't read that verse, if you told me i didn't fall out of context in what i said. That'd cool; i'm just using imagination here.
The verse is saying that "But small is the gate [to eternal life] and narrow the road [road referring to teachings of Christ] to that leads to life [eternal life], and only a few find it [not very many follow the road]."
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Harikrish
Posts: 26,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:28:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2015 7:41:37 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 7:26:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:


I assume you are referring to the final paragraph here:
"Finally, the Bible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universally operated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself. In Romans 8 we are told that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay (the second law of thermodynamics). This law in the context of an expanding universe establishes that the cosmos was much hotter in the past. In Genesis 1 and in many places throughout Job, Psalms, and Proverbs we are informed that stars have existed since the early times of creation. As explained in two Reasons To Believe books,10 even the slightest changes in either the laws of gravity or electromagnetism would make stars impossible. As already noted in the accompanying article, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics yield stable orbits of planets around stars and of electrons around the nuclei of atoms only if they operate in a universe described by three very large rapidly expanding dimensions of space."
So what exactly is the criticism you have?

Firstly Romans 8 talks about "decay".

Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

Decay definition:
1. (of organic matter) rot or decompose through the action of bacteria and fungi.

We know humans decay, rot when they die like all organic matter. Romans 8 is a promise there will be no decay/rotting because death and suffering will be eradicated.

The second law of thermodynamics is about heat energy and increased Entropy. Entropy is not decay. Romans 8 is not talking about heat energy or increased entropy. The author is confusing biology (organic decay) with physics (heat energy and entropy).

Second Law of Thermodynamics - The Laws of Heat Power
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of three Laws of Thermodynamics. The term "thermodynamics" comes from two root words: "thermo," meaning heat, and "dynamic," meaning power. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics are the Laws of "Heat Power." As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:34:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 2:14:35 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:39 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Sure. What i simply mean is that heaven is one reality. It has its rules and how to get there. If one lives in that reality they would expect to live how it is described: Beautiful, worry free, no evil, bliss etc. However, i may find another paradise to my liking. For instance, i would find it enjoyable to live in a reality were magic is real, sorta correlative to a Harry Potter type world. Now, for this world to be what it is, it will follow similar rules. It has to be a reality similar to the fantasy with magic. However, my reality would need opposition. It's convenient to me that their are characters in our reality now that would be willing to play the role of lord voldemort.
I don't think you really clarified the question, but rather your position. Nonetheless, neither of us are going to heaven.

You can read all of Matthew 7 to see that it is in context. Let me be the first to tell you, I do not take verses out of context.

I wasn't saying you took it out of context, sorry if it came across that way. I meant i am taking it out of context, so i may be wrong. I just wanted to tell you how i felt about that verse. It would be interesting to me, since i haven't read that verse, if you told me i didn't fall out of context in what i said. That'd cool; i'm just using imagination here.
The verse is saying that "But small is the gate [to eternal life] and narrow the road [road referring to teachings of Christ] to that leads to life [eternal life], and only a few find it [not very many follow the road]."

But Jesus said there was another way to eternal life.

John 6: 53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:34:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 2:14:35 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:39 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Sure. What i simply mean is that heaven is one reality. It has its rules and how to get there. If one lives in that reality they would expect to live how it is described: Beautiful, worry free, no evil, bliss etc. However, i may find another paradise to my liking. For instance, i would find it enjoyable to live in a reality were magic is real, sorta correlative to a Harry Potter type world. Now, for this world to be what it is, it will follow similar rules. It has to be a reality similar to the fantasy with magic. However, my reality would need opposition. It's convenient to me that their are characters in our reality now that would be willing to play the role of lord voldemort.
I don't think you really clarified the question, but rather your position. Nonetheless, neither of us are going to heaven.

The question was stated in the previous thread, i just tried to visualize it for you to understand what i mean (analogy). I'll rephrase the question. Would it not be more logic that there is more than "heaven" as an afterlife reality? More like hundreds of realities beyond our own. In that regard, i agree ... i am not going to a reality like the traditional view of Heaven. I enjoy fantasy more. I also wouldn't want to stay immortal personally. I'd rather live an experience. I feel this is true for everyone. No one would enjoy being immortal; eventually.

The verse is saying that "But small is the gate [to eternal life] and narrow the road [road referring to teachings of Christ] to that leads to life [eternal life], and only a few find it [not very many follow the road]."

Why can't this verse be correlative to reality how i explained it? Even if it does simply refer to immortality, i would also agree. Some may be replaying lives over and over bc they do not want immortality. Everyone is different in their desires. However, if one does follow the path of Jesus, which i equate to love, they will find a more enjoyable road. If one stays open minded, that narrow path may have interesting implications. Or, i can take the entire verse as a metaphor to be good. How do i decide which is correct?
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 2:08:51 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:41:38 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

You say this like it is a bad thing. Is it not logical to interpret the Bible in light of new discoveries?
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.

Unless you can show compelling evidence otherwise, it should be taken that men wrote the Bible to be understood by men of their own time -- i.e, men like themselves, in their own images and language. Certainly, that was the way those texts have been traditionally used, and there is no credible independent evidence otherwise. But assuming that very reasonable intention, ask yourself how you'd best explain the Big Bang Theory and evolution to a man of that time. Would you do it by copying the Babylonian myth of Enuma Elish, getting astronomy and terragenesis wrong, the sequence of events wrong and the origin of species totally wrong?
I have shown you compelling evidence otherwise. In fact, I have given you a whole slew.
You cannot claim that Genesis = BBT + Evolution because the Bible is inerrant. You (or Hugh) can in fact only claim Biblical inerrance based on demonstrating that the the only reasonable intended meaning for Genesis is BBT + Evolution.

But we know the latter to be false.

Before the BBT and Evolution were accepted scientific accounts, did any independent linguist ever propose that's what Genesis meant? In fact, didn't scholarly theologians spend over a century pronouncing evolution false because it contradicted Genesis?

Have ancient languages changed in the meantime, Ty, or are some theologians straining credulity to retrospectively claim inerrance?

Something you may not understand about science is that it's not the study of what you may believe, but the discipline of eliminating what cannot be true until you recognise what you must believe.

Big Bang wasn't generally accepted until there was no alternative but to do so. Likewise with relativity, evolution, quantum mechanics. These theories can be amended by new data, but not special pleading.

Your problem Ty, is that you (and Hugh) are not arguing for what you must believe, but only for what you may believe. There's nothing so insightful, compelling or predictive about Hugh's account of cosmogenesis that anyone need accept it, except those already prejudiced to do so.

And that means pretty much the whole of science will (and already have) ignore Hugh because science isn't about what you want to believe but what evidence cannot let you reasonably doubt. And even those who want to believe Hugh will need to be ignorant of science, indifferent to history and linguistics, or very weak in integrity. Otherwise they'll criticise and reject Hugh, as did Creationist Zoologist Dr Bolton Davidheiser, author of Evolution and Christian Faith [http://www.amazon.com...] [http://www.bible.ca...]. Davidheiser goes into great detail as to how Ross' position is unsupportably theologically or scientifically here: [http://www.bible.ca...]

That in a nutshell is what's wrong with Hugh's approach, what's wrong with the strained reinterpretation of theological apologetics, and what I think is wrong with the way you're presently arguing.

I don't think we need go into more detail, or rather, I don't think I do.

If you have any questions about what qualities a scientific model requires and why, I'll be glad to answer. However if you wish to pretend that arguing so you may believe is proof that a scientist or linguist must believe, then that is a journey you must take alone.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 10:09:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 2:34:58 AM, Outplayz wrote:

The question was stated in the previous thread, i just tried to visualize it for you to understand what i mean (analogy). I'll rephrase the question. Would it not be more logic that there is more than "heaven" as an afterlife reality? More like hundreds of realities beyond our own. In that regard, i agree ... i am not going to a reality like the traditional view of Heaven. I enjoy fantasy more. I also wouldn't want to stay immortal personally. I'd rather live an experience. I feel this is true for everyone. No one would enjoy being immortal; eventually.
Well, I cannot really give details about the logistics of heaven. All I know about it is in the Bible.

Why can't this verse be correlative to reality how i explained it? Even if it does simply refer to immortality, i would also agree. Some may be replaying lives over and over bc they do not want immortality. Everyone is different in their desires. However, if one does follow the path of Jesus, which i equate to love, they will find a more enjoyable road. If one stays open minded, that narrow path may have interesting implications. Or, i can take the entire verse as a metaphor to be good. How do i decide which is correct?
You can interpret what "eternal life" means for you, but the verse itself cannot be interpreted in too many different ways. In context of Matthew 7, the interpretation I gave is pretty sound.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

I have shown you compelling evidence otherwise. In fact, I have given you a whole slew.
You cannot claim that Genesis = BBT + Evolution because the Bible is inerrant. You (or Hugh) can in fact only claim Biblical inerrance based on demonstrating that the the only reasonable intended meaning for Genesis is BBT + Evolution.

But we know the latter to be false.
No we do not. No one has ever claimed, from my own readings, that Genesis and evolution can walk through the park together. They are simply opposing ideas and the creation model openly admits this, which is why evolution is not in it. However, the Big Bang is in the Bible. You seem to be stuck on the vagueness of the Biblical texts, which is fine, because the creation model states:
"God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm."

Before the BBT and Evolution were accepted scientific accounts, did any independent linguist ever propose that's what Genesis meant? In fact, didn't scholarly theologians spend over a century pronouncing evolution false because it contradicted Genesis?
They still do pronounce it as false, even the creation model I gave you does. So you are showing me that you did not actually examine it too well. To answer your second question, I will start with a question: How could they? As Christians, the only information we have is in the Bible until we go find the extra-Biblical data. There is no way that someone in the first , second, third, etc. century could have described the BBT in any great detail. However, Christians have always known there was a beginning of the universe, even when some said otherwise:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Have ancient languages changed in the meantime, Ty, or are some theologians straining credulity to retrospectively claim inerrance?
Ancient languages do not change, but our understandings do.

Something you may not understand about science is that it's not the study of what you may believe, but the discipline of eliminating what cannot be true until you recognise what you must believe.
Right, so prove that creation model wrong. You have called it out in the past few post for making elementary errors, but have yet to show any. It is a testable and falsifiable model. For example, if it turned out that we had a static universe, then the model would collapse.

Big Bang wasn't generally accepted until there was no alternative but to do so. Likewise with relativity, evolution, quantum mechanics. These theories can be amended by new data, but not special pleading.
Then read some of their articles on evolution and the origins of life.

Your problem Ty, is that you (and Hugh) are not arguing for what you must believe, but only for what you may believe. There's nothing so insightful, compelling or predictive about Hugh's account of cosmogenesis that anyone need accept it, except those already prejudiced to do so.
I guess we will have to disagree here. I cannot possibly fathom why you keep making vague claims, but until you stop doing that I do not believe you are helping anyone. Because you gave no specifics to the claim that "There's nothing so insightful, compelling or predictive about Hugh's account of cosmogenesis that anyone need accept it, except those already prejudiced to do so," a reasonable response from me would simply be:
I disagree.

And that means pretty much the whole of science will (and already have) ignore Hugh because science isn't about what you want to believe but what evidence cannot let you reasonably doubt. And even those who want to believe Hugh will need to be ignorant of science, indifferent to history and linguistics, or very weak in integrity. Otherwise they'll criticise and reject Hugh, as did Creationist Zoologist Dr Bolton Davidheiser, author of Evolution and Christian Faith [http://www.amazon.com...] [http://www.bible.ca...]. Davidheiser goes into great detail as to how Ross' position is unsupportably theologically or scientifically here: [http://www.bible.ca...]
Did you actually read that article on Bible.ca? Other than the website being ridiculous to begin with, he makes blatantly false claims and argues over subjective interpretations. For instance, he starts by arguing over the meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis, claiming that it is 24-hour period. That is fine, but he has no real basis for it other than he wants it to be. The word has three definitions:
1) a 12-hour period
2) a 24-hour period
3) an indefinite period of time
Hugh chooses three in light of modern science, young earth creationists typically choose two because they think that is better. He goes on to state that Hugh Ross follows the Miller-Urey experiment despite it being replaced. He rightly stated that it is replaced, but Hugh Ross does not even use the Miller-Urey experiment to justify the model. Here is an article about it:
http://www.reasons.org...

That in a nutshell is what's wrong with Hugh's approach, what's wrong with the strained reinterpretation of theological apologetics, and what I think is wrong with the way you're presently arguing.
You use a young earth creationist to try and debunk Hugh Ross? That is not inherently bad, but you could have picked a more honest one like Ken Ham.

I don't think we need go into more detail, or rather, I don't think I do.
You gave no detail, so I would argue otherwise.

If you have any questions about what qualities a scientific model requires and why, I'll be glad to answer. However if you wish to pretend that arguing so you may believe is proof that a scientist or linguist must believe, then that is a journey you must take alone.
You have to answer a lot of my other questions that you ignored throughout this conversation before I expect you to answer any new questions.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.