Author Topic: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)  (Read 2405 times)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's what they all say. Thing is, were the near-ignorant goat-hearders to even experience visions of how the universe, the earth, and life on it came about, they would not describe what happen in remotely the manner it was actually described in Genesis.
Dr. Naik's description is only the beginning and most superficial of the scientific errors of the bible. It's nothing less than myth, the same as the world being made from the body of the frost giant Ymir after Odin and his fellow gods slew him. The entire notion is deeply flawed on all levels. Dr. Naik concentrates on those "best examples" of the deficiencies of the Biblical discriptions because other examples I could give reveal that the Quran is just as deficient as the Bible on them. To me, these are not the best examples of the inaccuracies of the christian creation myth.
Ok, so you say it is impossible to reconcile Genesis with Science?
Without twisting the Bible or science?
Well, wait for the forthcomming attraction.
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

OK, so we now have our Atheist members already knowing what I will show them, and Naik only superficially proved the Creation non accountable with Science.
I should actually just keep silent and let the Atheist bias minded wizards tell me what I want to say!

Well, only if I am stupid will I believe that miracle.
So, lets go with the "Biblical description of the Genesis creation explanation" and see if any atheists realise how they were denied the scientific description from the Bible.

Now, the Bible is very clear about how God created the Earth and Heavens.
In the beginning He created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was without any form and dark throughout its deep.
God said, let there be light and it was night and day 1
Then he said there must be a divide which he called the firmament, and waters above the firmament and below the firmament. Day 2.
Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea. day 3.
On day 4 God made 2 luminaries, and they shined into the Atmosphere. day 4.

We will wait here for a while.

Now, lets look at the 3rd day.
this is the key to it all, and if one can not grasp this little logical fact, you can just as well regard your intellect as lower than 80 points IQ.
Primary school children can answer this with ease.

IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)

Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.


 
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

Offline Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why?
Do you have any idea what I am still going to show you?
Good Lord but atheists are bias!
What is this great myth that Atheists are openminded?

Bias is normal.  Atheists are actually as normal as theists ;-)

Your hermeneutical quandaries are of little interest.  How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  And are they Evangelical or Catholic?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 10:45:28 AM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok, so you say it is impossible to reconcile Genesis with Science?
Without twisting the Bible or science?
Well, wait for the forthcomming attraction.

The connection?  The Big Bang happened, somehow ... (actually cause isn't necessary, there is simply a very definite boundary to the past, the 3.5K radiation boundary).  Not much can be known before that, in spite of physics claims.  Without experiment (aka experimental cosmology) it isn't possible to have a "good" theory of origins.  Anyway, about 13.5 billion years later, as monkeys measure such things, some Jews over a long period of time, wrote some stuff, that got anthologizes into the Bible.  Later Gentiles got into the act, even Arabs, and pretty much ruined everything ;-)
שלום

[quote author=Mousetrap link=topic=12764.msg1222158#msg1222158 date=1531059628

IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)

Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.
[/quote]
This is rather tiring.  You came here with an agenda.  The Socratic method of teaching is great.  Except I, for one, do not consider you a teacher.  If you have a point, make it, and I will comment on it.  You tiresome lead-up is just that--tiresome.  If you want a conversation, say so.  And state your point.  Otherwise you are only wasting your finger power and driving most of us away.  If you came to annoy, you are doing that well.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline SGOS

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you have a point, make it, and I will comment on it.  You tiresome lead-up is just that--tiresome.  If you want a conversation, say so.  And state your point.  Otherwise you are only wasting your finger power and driving most of us away.
Self hype requires some nuance and skill, but this is like watching an SNL satire.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...
Now, the Bible is very clear about how God created the Earth and Heavens.
In the beginning He created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was without any form and dark throughout its deep.
God said, let there be light and it was night and day 1
Then he said there must be a divide which he called the firmament, and waters above the firmament and below the firmament. Day 2.
Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea. day 3.
On day 4 God made 2 luminaries, and they shined into the Atmosphere. day 4.

We will wait here for a while.

Now, lets look at the 3rd day.
this is the key to it all, and if one can not grasp this little logical fact, you can just as well regard your intellect as lower than 80 points IQ.
Primary school children can answer this with ease.

IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)

Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.

OK, I’ll give it a try.  Unfortunately, I’m a bit confused and I need some help.  I would appreciate it if you could provide me with some clarifications, insights and some of your special knowledge that, as I atheist, I cannot possibly possess, before I take the plunge to answer your “simple question”.  After all, I don’t want to be judged as a person with an IQ below 80.  Coming from such an important and nearly divine person such as yourself, that would be devastating.

1.  On this "THIRD DAY", were the laws of physics and chemistry the same as they are today?  Did gravity exist?  How about conservation of matter and energy? 

2.  What is the "LAND"?  Is it everything except water?  What about OH- or H+ ions?  Are those part of the water or part of the land?

3.  What is meant by “SEPARATED”?  Put in a different place?  Ordered never to associate or be near each other again?  Was gravity used?  How about plate tectonics?  If your god used those, was he cheating?  Today, water and land are often mixed together.  Did your god screw up?  Was it more of a "Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea, except where there wasn't"?

4.  How could I see what the Earth looked like on the morning of the third day if the sun and moon (the two luminaries) did not show up until the fourth day?  Do I get to use a flashlight? 

5.  At which frequencies of light do I get to observe the Earth the morning of the third day?  Do I get to use X-ray vision, or an infrared scope? 

6.  If I answer wrong and do not see the Earth on the morning of the third day the same as you do, is your sky fairy going to punish me?  If so, would you put in a good word for me anyway?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why?
Do you have any idea what I am still going to show you?
Good Lord but atheists are bias!
What is this great myth that Atheists are openminded?

You think we can't recognize preachers when we see them?
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Offline Hakurei Reimu

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, so we now have our Atheist members already knowing what I will show them, and Naik only superficially proved the Creation non accountable with Science.
I should actually just keep silent and let the Atheist bias minded wizards tell me what I want to say!

Well, only if I am stupid will I believe that miracle.
So, lets go with the "Biblical description of the Genesis creation explanation" and see if any atheists realise how they were denied the scientific description from the Bible.

Now, the Bible is very clear about how God created the Earth and Heavens.
In the beginning He created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was without any form and dark throughout its deep.
God said, let there be light and it was night and day 1
Then he said there must be a divide which he called the firmament, and waters above the firmament and below the firmament. Day 2.
Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea. day 3.
On day 4 God made 2 luminaries, and they shined into the Atmosphere. day 4.

We will wait here for a while.

Now, lets look at the 3rd day.
this is the key to it all, and if one can not grasp this little logical fact, you can just as well regard your intellect as lower than 80 points IQ.
Primary school children can answer this with ease.

IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)

Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.
Well, setting aside my knowledge of how the Earth actually formed at this stage when we first have land and the sea, and taking the primary schooler point of view, several possibilities offer themselves. The first is that it would look like either some amalgam of land and water separating like oil and water. The second is that there was a world covered with water and then the water retreated from the land. This latter process naturally suggests itself from the fact that the previous day, there are great reservoirs of water above and below the earth. This suggests that the waters covering the earth could drain into the lower reservoirs.

Now, it didn't rain on dry land, because the ancients knew bloody well what rain was and would describe that scene as rain filling the ocean basins of already present dry land. They would have described God as speaking rain into existence and having the rain fill up those ocean basins. Ergo, this is not what the ancients were envisioning when they wrote the passage.

After all, the land and the sea would not need to be separated (as claimed in the day three description) if the land was already dry and we were just filling the oceans by filling them with rainwater. If anything, in this scenario, water (already separated) was added to the Earth to form the seas.

But, sadly, this is closest to what science says happened. See, the earth began as a clumpy amalgam of rocks gravitationally bound together, and whose gravity was attracting more and more material, which eventually through radioactivity and the Kelvin-Helmholtz process caused the rocks to melt and the Earth spent a few million years molten. Further, by the best scientific explanation, before it ever gets its first ocean, Earth was smacked with a planet-massed object whose mixed up ejecta formed the moon. It also remelted the Earth's crust. Only when it solidified millions of years later, and outgassing enough material to form the primeval atmosphere and cooling enough for water to condense out as rain, only then do we get the Earth's primeval ocean.

Note also, that science also says that the sun has already formed and is shining throughout this period. We know this because the Earth isn't a gas giant. The solar wind and radiation pressure blew away most of the lighter elements that would otherwise be gravitationally bound to the early Earth and leave it as a small, rocky world.

So, this is how the ancients would describe the formation of the earth, even without knowing much science:

Day 1 would have the sun coalesce and started glowing first, filling the solar system with light. It's light and heat would blow away the icy part of the disk-shaped cloud, leaving only a swarm of huge fuck-off boulders.

Day 2 would have the earth start to form from these boulders clumping together. It would also be painfully obvious why the earth would have day and night: the day is the sunlit half of the earth, and the night would be the land being in the earth's own shadow.

Day 3 would have the Earth start glowing. The ancients would not necessary know what they were looking at is molten rock/lava, but they would sure as hell knew what they were looking at was emitting light.

Day 4 would have a very huge fuck-off bolder around the same size as the earth smack into it, spewing rock into orbit and heating the earth even more. The ejecta would form the moon, and the earth would slowly cool down, cease glowing (restoring the observation of sunlit side = day and shadowed portion = night, and observe much the same thing about the moon and conclude that it must be for a similar reason — and the moon would not be a source of light, but a reflector of it), and only then gain an ocean from the cooling atmosphere raining water down on the earth to fill its dry basins.

So, by your own description, the bible gets the order and description of key events wrong, stuff it wouldn't get wrong if the ancients who wrote it had a vision of what happened that bore any resemblance to what science says happened. The ancients privy to the creation of the universe, even if they didn't know why, would know that the sun formed first and started glowing first, that the earth formed next out of what would be described as boulders, that the earth itself was smacked with a similar sized object, and only later the moon formed, and after that, the ocean formed by rain filling up the lowest part of the earth's now-solid crust — crust that was at some point glowing like a luminary itself. It would also be painfully obvious why the Earth had day and night, why the moon had phases, why there were eclipses of both types, and knew there was no way that there could be a solar and lunar eclipse at the same time, or even in the same month.

Instead, we have the earth form first, which is wrong. We have the day/night cycle form next (without the sun), which is wrong. Then we have the oceans and dry land separating out, which is wrong. And then we have the sun and moon form after the oceans, which is wrong. They didn't realize that the Earth was smacked with a gargantuan object and had at points a melted, glowing crust, which in any true-to-life vision would be obvious. The ancients didn't even realize that the day and phases of the moon were caused by the sun, which in any true-to-life vision would, again, be obvious.

So, yeah, mark this with a fail. Your cosmology, even the little piece you had presented, doesn't bear the slightest resemblance with what happened, or anything resembling how an ancient would describe happened, had God shown or informed him of anything resembling what science has concluded.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I think Mousetrap is just trying to push our buttons, not present any kind of coherent argument. Or maybe, like other theists that have come here, he's just trying to get us to be rude to him so he can go back to his Christian buddies and say "See - look how horrible those damned atheists are!"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Over the course of my career as an undercover officer in the C.I.A, I saw Russian intelligence manipulate many people. I never thought I would see the day when an American president would be one of them."
Will Hurd

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think Mousetrap is just trying to push our buttons, not present any kind of coherent argument. Or maybe, like other theists that have come here, he's just trying to get us to be rude to him so he can go back to his Christian buddies and say "See - look how horrible those damned atheists are!"
If he asks I'll be horrible to him without provocation. I'm just that kind of guy.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, I’ll give it a try.  Unfortunately, I’m a bit confused and I need some help.  I would appreciate it if you could provide me with some clarifications, insights and some of your special knowledge that, as I atheist, I cannot possibly possess, before I take the plunge to answer your “simple question”.  After all, I don’t want to be judged as a person with an IQ below 80.  Coming from such an important and nearly divine person such as yourself, that would be devastating.

1.  On this "THIRD DAY", were the laws of physics and chemistry the same as they are today?  Did gravity exist?  How about conservation of matter and energy? 

2.  What is the "LAND"?  Is it everything except water?  What about OH- or H+ ions?  Are those part of the water or part of the land?

3.  What is meant by “SEPARATED”?  Put in a different place?  Ordered never to associate or be near each other again?  Was gravity used?  How about plate tectonics?  If your god used those, was he cheating?  Today, water and land are often mixed together.  Did your god screw up?  Was it more of a "Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea, except where there wasn't"?

4.  How could I see what the Earth looked like on the morning of the third day if the sun and moon (the two luminaries) did not show up until the fourth day?  Do I get to use a flashlight? 

5.  At which frequencies of light do I get to observe the Earth the morning of the third day?  Do I get to use X-ray vision, or an infrared scope? 

6.  If I answer wrong and do not see the Earth on the morning of the third day the same as you do, is your sky fairy going to punish me?  If so, would you put in a good word for me anyway?
^^This!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline trdsf

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have not even shown you anything!
You can say that again...
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Offline trdsf

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now why would you attempt to connect the Quran whith what I found in the Bible?
You're the one who brought up the Quran, not me.  And they're already connected -- not only are they both big books of nomadic fables, but also the Quran is informed by the Bible.  Why would you act like this is a surprise given your own opening post?
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Offline trdsf

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)
Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.
Too simple.  The Genesis account is just a fable and there was no identifiable "third day", or "second day", or even "first day".  The Earth coalesced out of the solar debris disk over millions of years.  There was no particular day before which there was no Earth, and after which there was, alakazam*poof!*.  Just a continuum of development over geological/astronomical time.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk