The Creation

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Buffalo Roam, Dec 19, 2009.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Very clever, you just made my point AGAIN.
    What's number one on the list?
    Oh golly! It's exactly what I quoted.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Look at the first entry. Analyzing a set of facts and coming up with an explanation is a theory. the facts are not called theories.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    I have: a theory is the analysis of a set of facts.
    Get it yet?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    of course i get it. difference is that a FACT is never wrong and the ANALYSIS can be wrong. Which i am not saying it is or isnt in this instance, just felt it was crucial to point this out.
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Which chronology of genesis creation?
    There's at leats two that I'm aware of.
    Compare Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 to Genesis 2:4-25, let us know which account is the correct one, then try again.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Oops wrong again.
    People can be mistaken on what is factual and what isn't. For many years. Something can be proclaimed as a fact only to have it turn out that it wasn't after all.
    Just thought that was worth pointing out...
     
  10. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    So everywhere, and nowhere, all in motion, moving away from each center, in the simplest of explanations?

    Interesting, and again a parallel in the Bible, God being Nowhere, Yet Everywhere.
     
  11. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    That is true too. In that case it would be a mistake\error.
     
  12. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    The Spirit of God passing over the pre-existing waters is the first step of the Creation (just as it does in many creation myths where water is deemed eternal). It's more clearly a retelling of the Sumerian and Babylonian creation myth.

    Besides, in the Biblical Creation God doesn't create the stars in heaven until after the Earth is made (on the 4th day...which also seems to be when the Sun and Moon were created, odd since day and night existed on Day 1, though apparently without the Sun being involved). He also creates birds (5th day) before reptiles (6th day) when we know the order was reversed. For that matter, He seems to have separately created species, rather than simply creating single-celled creatures and letting them evolve, which is at odds with what we know.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2009
  13. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    You forgot the end of Genesis 1:31

    31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.


    and continue from Genesis 2:1

    1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.


    And as Genesis: 2, follows Genesis: 1, both are correct as one compliments the other, they are not two seperat stories, but the whole story, Genesis.
     
  14. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    He doesn't create the bird , for example until 2:19, after he created Adam. This is inconsistent with the "first" creation where birds are made on the fifth day and mankind (possibly Adam) on the 6th. Also He makes Eve only as a companion to Adam and only after the fact, whereas the two sexes appeared well before humans evolved, so would have existed from the very start of the species.

    In any event, why try to pigeonhole the scientific view of the universe into the creation myth? The Hindu creation myth seems far more accurate to me (they, for example, understood that the universe was billions of years old, not thousands), but would that alone make you want to worship the Hindu gods?
     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No, I didn't, forget anything.

    In Genesis 1:1-2:3

    Earth
    Light
    Day
    Heaven
    Land
    Grasses, herbs, and fruits
    Stars
    Sun and the moon
    Sea life/Birds
    Land life
    Man and woman (at the same time, from the same dust)

    However in Genesis 2:4-25 we have:
    Flowering plants
    Man
    Animals& birds
    Woman (from a rib).

    So which order of creation is the correct one (without getting into any of the logical absurdities, or places where contradictions with modern science occur).
     
  16. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    So is water essential for the Big Bang? Or don't we know? can you explain it?

    A explanation that is 7000+ years old, can a word be misinterpreted along the way?

    Again just like you, I have faith, mine a Faith in a Divine Action, vs: Your faith in a Human Scientist making a explanation for some supposed event from 14 billion years ago.

    I have read some articles on GR and Time, so how does GR and Time effect the Big Bang, some really neat head bashing going on about that concept.

    Are we talking about time as in classical mechanics?, or are we talking about Time as in Spacetime?

    Are we talking about time as in a Concept with dimensions?

    Or Non-mathematical notions of unified spacetime?

    Or as a Mathematical concept?

    The funny thing is that I accept your science, as I see it in the creation story, a parallel in the sequence of events, so what was a Day in the presence of God Time?, that is something that I don't think we can define, I don't deny your science, I just attribute it to different causes.
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Where does this "7,000 years" come from?
    Wiki
    That would make it ~3,000 years.

    In which case you aren't accepting science as science.
     
  18. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Trippy you have forgotten everything, linear progression of the story.....

    Chapter 1, follows Chapter 2, a linear progression.

    31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.​

    The world is formed and complete.

    Chapter 2 starts out with the statement that;

    1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.​


    Then goes back to discuss the happenings as in a flashback, a retrospection.
     
  19. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    The earliest aproxamate date of the creation story.

    You forgot the Torah, which is much older than the Bible, we include the Torah/Old Testament in our Bible for it's prediction of the birth of Jesus.


    Only by your definition of science, and creation.
     
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    And you're still missing the simple, obvious truth.

    It presents a DIFFERENT ORDER
    The two versions are CONTRADICTORY

    Or do you often present summaries as confused jumbles?
     
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Actually, the Pentateuche, the oldest part of the Torah, is still only 3000 years old, so no, he hasn't 'forgotten' anything (in fact he's implicitly included it).
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    So you're assuming it was written then?

    Or at a push
    Hmm so 539-334 (or 950) was before ~1200 BC?
    (Wiki again).

    By science's definition of science.
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Actually (I just checked) and you're "supported by science" is even further off that I stated.
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 1&version=NIV
    So according to your interpretation that would be the formation of Earth followed by the Big Bang?
    Way to go...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page