Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pappy Jack · 11-22-2007, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

....Certainly, my point is to demonstrate that the word is broad enough to include such, if the Hebrews had known about bacteria and so forth.

...... this was in reference to the question of seed-bearing plants. And broccoli? But the point is that these would have likely been meant too, and they are here included in "I give you every plant bearing seed for food."

So broccoli and bananas are plants bearing seed, in the sense meant here.

Lee, if you want to follow the philosophy of Humpty Dumpty -

Quote:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'

-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

- then you can pretty much find confirming evidence of anything you want in the bible. I bet if you look really, really hard enough you can find supporting 'evidence' for relativity, quantum physics, string theory and a whole bunch of 'advanced scientific knowledge'.

By the way, any further thoughts on the response I made to your 'snowball Earth' post:

Quote:

Well, yes, maybe - if it ever becomes something more than a hypothesis.

However, this still does not fit the biblical Genesis as therein the dividing of the waters and the rise of the land predate the forming of life, whereas the snowball Earth hypothesis clearly postdates the emergence of life and also, from the Wiki description, appears to be itself predated by the presence of large amounts of liquid water.

So I don't think this really fits as a counter to the arguments I was making in my previous post.

youngalexander · 11-22-2007, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LM

Alrighty, the biggy echo of said bang!

Curiously, science machos on! our universe is embedded in a far vaster realm
Turtles all the way ...

lee_merrill · 11-23-2007, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Many creation stories start with the complex, we think it intuitive that it starts simple because we have the record in scientific discoveries--let's not mistake our privileges in having this knowledge, let's not mistake that for human tendencies.

lee_merrill, you aren't grasping your task. You need to try to make sense.

Well, I'm not sure how this last statement you made continues the discussion...

Johnny Skeptic · 11-23-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

So who back then would have thought of the appearance of light first, and then arrangement of land and sea and waters?

What is unusual about a Bible writer fantasizing that God created light before he created land? While working in the dark would not bother a God, it is reasonable to assume that the idea of God working in the dark did not appeal to the writer of the book of Genesis.

I recently started a new thread at the Science and Skepticism Forum that is titled "Biblical creationism." The link is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=228702. I quoted your argument in the opening post. Following are the replies:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caine

Electromagnetic radiation, including light, has no priority chronologically or otherwise over other forms of energy in current scientific understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjakey

Pretty much anyone who was writing the story. If "god" doesn't invent light first, how's he supposed to see what he is doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

If you're making up a story, something has to come first. Seems to me that if you're making up a story about how everything got to where and how it is, you'd start with the non-material stuff like light, then go for the platform and scenery (the sky and earth and weather), then animals and plants. Isn't that how the story goes? You'd think, OTOH, that divine-obtained understanding would match what we've learned about the world, so that the ancient story would sound exactly like a modern (or even advanced to us) description of cosmology and evolution. Instead "God" sounds exactly like an ancient philosopher from a primitive farming culture -- why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

Sorry but Lee Merrill got even what the Bible says was first wrong.

Quote:

"In the beginning God Created the heaven and the Earth.

"And the Earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

"And God said. Let there be light: and there was light."

yadda yadda yadda.

Reads to me like the claim here is that god, the heavens, Earth, darkness, and water came before light.

ETA:
At a minimum you would have to say that the sequence (according the the bible) was
1. Heavens
2. Earth
3. Water
4. Light
5. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

[replying to skepticalbip] True. Why is it that the very people who claim that a strict adherence to the Bible is required to save their everlasting souls don't actually seem to have a very accurate knowledge of this book? I've even seen such a person on these forums admit he hasn't read the book. If I thought adherence to such a work was required to keep me from everlasting punishment I'd know that thing by heart, backwards and forwards -- I'd be able to answer questions about it in my sleep. These folk --not so much.

Please be sure to visit that thread, Lee. The skeptics over at the Science and Skepticism Forum need a few laughs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

But again, we are skipping over the correspondences, where every thread like this becomes immediately "look at all the difficulties!" This ignores the substantial correspondences as if they were not there, correspondences such as light first and inanimate to animate, such as forming dry ground and simple to complex life, and finally man.

Your "light first" argument has already been demolished. What do you mean by "animate to inanimate?" What did God create that was inanimate before it became animate? Regarding simple to complex life, what is unusual about that? It would have been ridiculous for the writer to claim that animals were created before plants were created. What would the animals have eaten? What would Adam and Eve have eaten?

If the God of the Bible exists, what could he or anyone else possibly have to gain from his refusal to provide more evidence?

Johnny Skeptic · 11-23-2007, 02:01 PM

Message to Lee Merrill: Consider the following from the Science and Sketicism Forum:

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

Maybe you could ask Lee Merril why god seems to have forgotten by Genesis 2-5 that he had already created man and woman.

Quote:

Genesis chapter 1
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Quote:
Genesis chapter 2

5. And every plant in the field was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

So, in his senility, he made humans again but a little differently - instead of both man and woman at the same time like in Genesis 1-27, this time he did the man first then later remembered "just bedamned gotta make a woman too."

Quote:

Genesis chapter 2

7. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

.... wait ..... wait..... wait
OK, he finally remembered to make Eve.

Quote:

Genesis chapter 2
22. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

So what happened to that first man and woman created in Genesis 1-27? Did they just poof into nothingness because god forgot that they were standing around with their thumbs in their arse waiting for him to come back?

GenesisNemesis · 11-23-2007, 02:02 PM

To Lee_Merrill:

If you had the ability, would you give the Bible to science classes as a student guide? Why or why not?

lee_merrill · 11-23-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

If you had the ability, would you give the Bible to science classes as a student guide? Why or why not?

No, because the main point is not science. My argument here is not that Genesis is a science textbook, but that correspondences there are unexpected (as far as science knowledge in that day is concerned), and unique (especially in combination) among creation accounts, and indicate a real designer.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-23-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

My argument here is not that Genesis is a science textbook, but that correspondences there are unexpected (as far as science knowledge in that day is concerned), and unique (especially in combination) among creation accounts, and indicate a real designer.

That is false, as I showed in my posts #64 and #65, two posts which you conveniently did not reply to.

What combinations are you talking about?

What does a "real" designer mean? What would an "unreal" designer mean?

I noticed that you gave up on the Babylon prophecy. I don't blame you since even the vast majority of fundamentalist scholars and laymen disagree with you, including probably every Bible commentary that was ever written. Who convinced you to accept your ridiculous arguments about the Babylon prophecy? Was it possibly Josh MacDowell? If so, that explains everything. Even many fundamentalist Christians criticize MacDowell, including James Holding. MacDowell is an embarrassment to Christianity.

If the God of the Bible exists, surely he would prefer to show up in person and defend the Bible since he would know that he could do a much better job of that than you ever could. In addition, if God wanted people to have enough food to eat, he would give people food himself instead of allowing people to starve to death. Further, if God wanted the Gospel message to be spread, he would have spread it himself. Neither God nor anyone else has anything to gain from his insistance on humans being the main sources of meeting humans' tangible needs. Non-existent Gods are only able to meet spiritual needs, never tangible needs. Humans and animals are in the same boat, the boat meaning survival of the fittest. When hurricane Katrina went to New Orleans, only the fittest, luckiest humans and animals survived.

lee_merrill · 11-24-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What combinations are you talking about?

The correspondences may be found in this other account or that other story, one or two maybe, but not so many in one account.

Quote:

What does a "real" designer mean?

A designer who is real, it's a manner of speaking, saying this does not imply I also would think unreal designers a possibility.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-24-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

So who back then would have thought of the appearance of light first, and then arrangement of land and sea and waters?

What is unusual about a Bible writer fantasizing that God created light before he created land? While working in the dark would not bother a God, it is reasonable to assume that the idea of God working in the dark did not appeal to the writer of the book of Genesis.

I recently started a new thread at the Science and Skepticism Forum that is titled "Biblical creationism." The link is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=228702. I quoted your argument in the opening post. Following are the replies:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caine

Electromagnetic radiation, including light, has no priority chronologically or otherwise over other forms of energy in current scientific understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjakey

Pretty much anyone who was writing the story. If "god" doesn't invent light first, how's he supposed to see what he is doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

If you're making up a story, something has to come first. Seems to me that if you're making up a story about how everything got to where and how it is, you'd start with the non-material stuff like light, then go for the platform and scenery (the sky and earth and weather), then animals and plants. Isn't that how the story goes? You'd think, OTOH, that divine-obtained understanding would match what we've learned about the world, so that the ancient story would sound exactly like a modern (or even advanced to us) description of cosmology and evolution. Instead "God" sounds exactly like an ancient philosopher from a primitive farming culture -- why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

Sorry but Lee Merrill got even what the Bible says was first wrong.

Quote:

"In the beginning God Created the heaven and the Earth.

"And the Earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

"And God said. Let there be light: and there was light."

yadda yadda yadda.

Reads to me like the claim here is that god, the heavens, Earth, darkness, and water came before light.

ETA:
At a minimum you would have to say that the sequence (according the the bible) was
1. Heavens
2. Earth
3. Water
4. Light
5. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

[replying to skepticalbip] True. Why is it that the very people who claim that a strict adherence to the Bible is required to save their everlasting souls don't actually seem to have a very accurate knowledge of this book? I've even seen such a person on these forums admit he hasn't read the book. If I thought adherence to such a work was required to keep me from everlasting punishment I'd know that thing by heart, backwards and forwards -- I'd be able to answer questions about it in my sleep. These folk --not so much.

Please be sure to visit that thread, Lee. The skeptics over at the Science and Skepticism Forum need a few laughs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

But again, we are skipping over the correspondences, where every thread like this becomes immediately "look at all the difficulties!" This ignores the substantial correspondences as if they were not there, correspondences such as light first and inanimate to animate, such as forming dry ground and simple to complex life, and finally man.

Your "light first" argument has already been demolished. What do you mean by "animate to inanimate?" What did God create that was inanimate before it became animate? Regarding simple to complex life, what is unusual about that? That is what evolutionists believe. It would have been ridiculous for the writer to claim that animals were created before plants were created. What would the animals have eaten? What would Adam and Eve have eaten?

If the God of the Bible exists, what could he or anyone else possibly have to gain from his refusal to provide more evidence?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-23-2007, 02:02 PM	#66
GenesisNemesis Contributor Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A pale blue oblate spheroid. Posts: 20,351	To Lee_Merrill: If you had the ability, would you give the Bible to science classes as a student guide? Why or why not?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.