FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-24-2001, 01:20 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Post

Muad'Dib,

Thank you for your explanation and I realize after reading your post that maybe I was being a bit "bitchy." I am having one of those days where I have to deal with too many stupid/ignorant people and my anger is a bit misdirected.

Your points are very relevant and thank you for your level headedness! It is so time for me to go home, relax and breathe - maybe some yoga tonight.

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 10-24-2001, 01:26 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: surrounded by fundies
Posts: 768
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasin:
<STRONG>The science I gave about the earth spinning and the earth being 1 AU from the sun is science I gave to explain "heaven to divide night and day". That was an answer for DON on his question about how that it possible.</STRONG>
What does the distance of the Earth from the Sun have to do with heaven dividing day and night?
Flynn McKerrow is offline  
Old 10-24-2001, 02:07 PM   #43
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: hollywood,CA, USA
Posts: 30
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by brighid:
<STRONG>
Just a few thoughts for Quad Whore - good Christian name by the Way ...
</STRONG>
You're an idiot. Just because I am correcting you're flawed logic doesn't make me a christian. In fact I am an atheist.

[QB}
Quote:
Do you realize that you are on an INFIDEL forum? God, as far as any available evidence is concerned has created nothing. There is a book – a very questionable book that says this god created things and we are testing that theory. And certainly I will not shut up.
[/QB]
Your original statement was that before the creation of the sun there could be no light source sufficient to separate night and day. This is completely rediculous because in the context of the story there is no reason at all why god couldn't have created the light and then replaced with or turned it into the sun.

<STRONG>
Quote:
Certainly, we can detect such light – please do some research about the Hubble Telescope and science in general. Then please come back to me and tell me exactly how we cannot detect such light.
</STRONG>
What the hell are you talking about? If a light in the vicinity of the earth is turned off billions of years how can we detect it now?

<STRONG>
Quote:
The Earth would be a fucking Popsicle without the sun or some other similar object. It doesn’t just light up the sky like a night light. It is a dynamic energy source, without which our little planet would not be inhabitable. Take a look at those planets too close to the sun, or too far from the sun to support life. Jasin claims a FIXED LIGHT SOURCE – what fixed light source?
</STRONG>
If you want to argue about the time scale of genesis then you have a point worth discussing, that is a valid contradiction unlike anything you have previously posted.

<STRONG>
Quote:
And it would not matter if there was a person to differentiate day from night and it wouldn’t matter if there were people here NOW to do so – the necessary elements would need to be there to actually make it happen and if there is no sun, or similar celestial object there can be NO LIGHT, NO HEAT or other necessary energy source to make things as they say in the Bible. Where did the light come from? Even the Bible does not say because hmmmmmmm… a bunch of uneducated, superstitious back wood nomads had no clue about the sun, the earth, the moon and the stars – they thought the earth was flat and held up on pillars. Sorry, but that leaves their evidence and “divine revelation” just ever so slightly suspect

Brighid</STRONG>
There you go again. The story says god created the sun therefor the sun certainly doesn't need to exist for god to create light, heat or anything else he wants. You are no better than those uneducated nomads, infact you are worse them because you can't even follow a story that they wrote with their so called inferior minds.
QuadWhore is offline  
Old 10-24-2001, 08:26 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 845
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by brighid:
<STRONG>Muad'Dib,

Thank you for your explanation and I realize after reading your post that maybe I was being a bit "bitchy." I am having one of those days where I have to deal with too many stupid/ignorant people and my anger is a bit misdirected.
</STRONG>
It's quite all right; everyone has those days from time to time.
Muad'Dib is offline  
Old 10-24-2001, 11:36 PM   #45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 17
Post

Fortuna_of_Rome I have no problem with the bible nor anything in it. Your the one with the problem. I was merly showing how there is no contridiction And I have done just that. I am in no way a literalist just because I explain somethin literly. Thats just a way of explaining something biblical. Now I really don't feel like posting to this board again so I'm going to tell you each of this.

There are no contridictions in the bible the contridiction is in your understanding of what's there.

If anyone here would like to actually make an effort in understanding what's in Gods word then try taking some classes in grammar,theology. Why should anyone accept any opinions or statements from any agnostic/atheist as truth? It's not as if they have authority or credinitals in anything.
If anyone has any questions I'll be more then happy to answer em just send me an email. Things are better answered in email anyways. Theres no static,interference,interuptions nor anything else that can hinder a mans understanding in email.


May God Bless you and have mercy on you always.
IN Gods love, Jason
Jasin is offline  
Old 10-24-2001, 11:53 PM   #46
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 17
Lightbulb

Magethlaro Practice what you preach!
Magethlaro Gal has nothing whatsoever to do with Gen you can't mix and match, pick and place there is a chronolgy to what's in the bible.

AS I've already said there are no contridictions in the Bible the contridictions are in your understanding of whats there.
Jasin is offline  
Old 10-25-2001, 12:01 AM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: surrounded by fundies
Posts: 768
Post

Jasin, I have one quick question for you. Which insects don't have 6 legs?

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Flynn McKerrow ]
Flynn McKerrow is offline  
Old 10-25-2001, 09:03 AM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Post

Quad Whore –

“Your original statement was that before the creation of the sun there could be no light source sufficient to separate night and day. This is completely rediculous because in the context of the story there is no reason at all why god couldn't have created the light and then replaced with or turned it into the sun.”


How nice to speak to you today! I will start off by apologizing for making an improper assumption about your religious affiliations. That was a mistake. However, I was drawing those conclusions from your arguments in support of a god and those comments in support of Jasin. Your position seems to be contradictory to an atheist viewpoint and more supportive of the Christian worldview.

I don’t disagree with your statement that a god, in the context of a story (like any other fiction) could have created the light and then replaced it with or turned it into the sun. However the story does not support that conclusion. Genesis is rather vague. Jasin insists that there was a fixed light source or another celestial body besides the sun (one of 100’s he claims to be able to site). Now, if there was a fixed light source – what was it? It could not be the moon, or any of the other objects in our immediate vicinity. Fixed light sources or celestial bodies of a magnitude great enough to illuminate a planet don’t suddenly disappear and those that do generally do so with such force as to destroy all things in their path. If this source indeed existed there should be some evidence of it. And if this source then merged into and became a part of the sun, or the sun itself, where is the biblical evidence to support that claim or the scientific? So I think an explanation is in order.

Furthermore, one must 1st believe that a god, specifically the Christian god (in this case) has the ability to circumvent the laws of nature and do such extraordinary things as make celestial bodies appear and disappear on a whim, such as you have suggested in your comment that he could have created light (what is the source of this luminescence?) and then either replaced it with the sun or turn it into the sun. As an atheist, you should not believe such none sense. As an atheist you don’t believe in the notion of a god who is beyond the laws of nature, or a god at all for that matter. So I am puzzled by your harsh and defensive nature in support of such mythical stories as those found in Genesis and rest of the bible?

“What the hell are you talking about? If a light in the vicinity of the earth is turned off billions of years how can we detect it now? “

By something called Cosmic Background Radiation …

We can detect light that has traveled billions of miles from such far off reaches of the universe that require this light to travel 186,000 miles per second and traveled 5,870 billion miles – we can detect that. (The equation for calculating light years is 186,000 miles per second x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365 ) Even if that light source is no longer “living” at the point of origin.

NASA’s COBE satellite recorded an image from 15 billion years ago (presumably the big bang) detecting it’s Cosmic Background Radiation – what is considered to be “ancient light” from the beginning of the Universe. http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/seuforum/...L3/ancient.htm Here is a quote from that site (on the research link) “The secret is to use a telescope as a "time machine": The further out in space we look, the further back in time we see. That's because the distances in space are so huge, that it can take millions or billions of years for light to reach us. We see the universe as it was, not as it is.”

Here is something I found that relates to your idea about undetectable light : The Question
My questions relate to two matters that have been troubling me and for which I have not seen any comments by any astrophysicist or astronomer. The first question concerns the possibility for light emitted by a body that is 5 billion light years away from the earth, to survive for 5 billion years without being reduced to nothing during such long period of time. In other words, once light leaves its source it is no longer being fed with energy and thus it only dissipates energy through space and time. That being the case, how is it possible for such light to survive not only the distance but also the time. The only explanation that makes any sense to me would be that which would hold that space is curved and that the distances we think we observe are nor real in a physical sense. Rather, they are relativistic.
The Answer
As for your first question, No, light does not dissipate its energy as it travels through space. It can only dissipate its energy if it interacts with matter. Light is a form of energy, and does not need to be "replenished" once it is it emitted. This is because light is actually made up of an electric field and a magnetic field which produce and support each other as the light beam travels through space. If you've ever seen an electric generator/motor you know that the coils of wires being spun inside the magnets can produce electricity (i.e. an electric field). Also near power lines or motors compasses will become deflected because of the magnetic field produced by the electricity flowing through the power line or by the motor. It was in the 19th century that James Clerk Maxwell discovered that a changing electric field produces a magnetic field, and that likewise a changing magnetic field produces an electric field. He also discovered that light was comprised of these changing electric and magnetic fields. Hence, a light beam is "self-sustaining".

….

there is a residual effect from the Big Bang, and we can and have observed it. It's the Cosmic Background Radiation, which is observable in infrared wavelengths. Right after the first instant of the Big Bang, the energy was so great and dense that matter was constantly being created and destroyed (as predicted by Einstein's E = mc^2). The Universe was an expanding and cooling "soup" of energetic particles and photons. Around a year after the Big Bang, the "soup" had expanded and cooled enough that the photons in the soup no longer interacted with matter. This left a "gas" of photons that has since expanded and cooled to 3 degrees Kelvin. This radiation permeates all of the Universe. The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) measured this radiation to an unparalleled precision. For example, it has found that all but one part in 3000 of this "photon gas" contains energy from the Big Bang (in other words, the photons have essentially not interacted at all with the rest of the Universe since the Big Bang).

This was taken from http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...rs/970216.html

Here is a site so that you might explore Cosmic Background Radiation and the COBE Satellite http://space.gsfc.nasa.gov/astro/cobe/

Therefore, any light source would leave a signature or evidence of its existence, even 5 billion years ago. Although the bible supports a MUCH younger earth and that supposed fixed light source would be more easily detectable by current scientific standards. I am not an astrophysicist and unable to debate the finer points of light source, etc. But I feel the information provided is a sufficient remedy to your problem. Please be sure to research the links for further information that is too voluminous to post here, but valuable information none the less.

What valid contradiction exists in my comments that the Earth would be a Popsicle without the sun or a similar celestial body? Please support this accusation with scientific evidence to the contrary.

“There you go again. The story says god created the sun therefor the sun certainly doesn't need to exist for god to create light, heat or anything else he wants. You are no better than those uneducated nomads, infact you are worse them because you can't even follow a story that they wrote with their so called inferior minds”

There is go again doing what? If you go back and read my statement I said sun “or similar celestial body” in order for there to be light, etc. Jasin claims another fixed light source (or a “similar celestial body&#8221 and I would like to know what that is. And I certainly have no problem following the story, but my problem has been AGAIN – with the fixed light source theory that Jasin claims Genesis supports.

Jasin appears to support the idea that Genesis gives an accurate account as to how the universe was formed, although I may be drawing improper conclusions. But, to me this is how it appears to be. His claims go against all natural laws and scientific knowledge we currently possess. And again, he is making claims in an infidel forum claiming that a god created light, etc. I am not questioning that this is a story, like any other creation myth by civilizations from that time, but rather the probability and likelihood that this story is true and not a contradiction to natural law.

I find your belligerence and defensive posture to be quite puzzling, as well as your personal attacks – especially coming from an “alleged atheist.” It is possible to conclude, from your comments on this matter that you are not an atheist, but rather a theist making a false claim. I may again be incorrect, but your actions do not support an atheistic position, especially when you make comments like “So god can't create light as great as the sun? Shut up. …”

I find it highly improbable that the Genesis story is anything other than a fictional story devised by uneducated, nomadic goat herders thousands of years ago in an attempt to explain what they saw with their naked eyes. Although their attempts to explain this world cannot be construed as malicious in any way, their benign statements should not be taken as fact. I feel it is illogical to use fictional and mythical sources as accurate or even plausible source of information to determine the origins of our planet or the Universe in general.


Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 10-25-2001, 09:09 AM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Post

Muad'Dib,

thanks for your understanding! I am much better today

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 10-25-2001, 09:40 AM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Middlesbrough, England
Posts: 3,909
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasin:
<STRONG>Gen 1:4 "fixed light source" </STRONG>
Thank you Gen 1:4, very public spirited. Did anyone find out who broke it?
Boro Nut is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:11 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.