shirley knott

A thought just occrred to me regarding lee's inane attempts to argue from 'correspondance':
It is of the nature of fiction that it correspnd to the real world.
It is of the nature of lies that they include substantial correspondance with the real world.
It is the very heart and soul of scams and cons that they correspond to aspects of the real world and, especially, the needs and desires of the one(s) being scammed/conned.
So just how strong a case does 'corresondance' make for those who want to claim some privileged status for the Bible?
It dcould corresond at least as well as any of the trivialities lee has tossed out and still be a fiction, or a lie, or a con. Or all 3 and more.
Hardly impressive, unless one worships a trickster/conman.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Pappy Jack

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.

Nero's Boot

Snowball Earth? As evidence for a globe-encircling flood?

--that explains all those 100 million year-old fossilized human remains! NB

Von Smith

Of course you would. But I see no reason to believe that you are correct.

Even if that were true, it hardly helps. Grasses like flax appear in the fossil record even later than trees.

If it doesn't include all land animals, then when were all the other land animals created?

The Bible doesn't say "simple to complex life"; you are making that up. It says: plants, then fish and birds, then land animals, then man. And apart from generally conveying that man appears relatively recently, that does not correspond with science at all. Even worse, the impression in Genesis is that God created *all* types of fish and birds on one day, then *all* types of plants, etc. If you disagree, then by all means explain when you think the Bible says God created grasses as opposed to algae, when He created modern teleost fish as opposed to cartilegenous fish, when he created placental mammals as opposed to therapods, etc.

It's no good to pretend that other posters are just nitpicking some overall pattern of correspondence with a few exceptions; there is no correspondence. The appearance of lifeforms described in the Bible is wrong. The suggestion that there were plants (or algae, for that matter) before there was a sun and moon is wrong, the suggestion that the earth was completely covered with water at the very beginning of its formation is wrong. Pretty much everything that isn't the sort of trivial stuff any Bronze Age herdsman could guess at is wrong.

Johnny Skeptic

I still do not know what you are trying to prove. Please quote the Scriptures that you are talking about, and state why the Scriptures reasonably prove that the God of the Bible created the earth as opposed to naturalism, some other God, or an advanced alien.

Why would God have cause a continent to break apart when he could have instantly created the finished product?

Is it your position that God instantly created Adam and Eve as finished products? If so, how does that complement Behe's claim that God used part instantaneous creationism and part evolution?

blastula

There is no impressive correspondence. Genesis shows nothing more than that the writers observed life around them and fashioned some broad categories.

What would have been impressive is if the writers had mentioned something like intestinal bacteria or penguins or the rest of the solar system or the rings of Saturn or that plants produced the air that Adam breathed. Why doesn't BibleGod ever tell His transcribers anything about nature not already widely known? Not even Jesus Himself comes up with anything beyond his time. It would have been cool if Jesus said Satan took Him to outer space to view all the kingdoms of earth as it rotateth and travelleth around the sun as the sun holdeth the earth near.

It would also have been impressive if there was anything in Genesis that could give a nature investigator of that time any extra insight into the workings of nature not already known beyond the Bible. What discoveries of nature were ever helped by the Bible?

What lee is doing is typical, generous post hoc attribution of prophecy.

lee_merrill

Well, algae have zoospore forms, the point is that the word seed is more general, and I did show that even "tree" seems to have had a range of meaning that includes flax stalks.

I note no refutation here, tho!

lee_merrill

Certainly, and some cons are quite convincing. This thread is still about correspondences, and that is all, but when there are correspondences that people in that age would be unlikely to guess, that makes it probable that such are not not a fiction, or lie, or con, I would say.

A con artist makes stuff up based on what they know you would expect!

So who back then would have thought of the appearance of light first, and then arrangement of land and sea and waters? Many creation accounts start with birth, as in a primal egg laid by a primal bird, or a first father and mother who give birth to the sun etc., or with life being the start in some other way ("The children of the Iroquois Sky Woman created life on the land the animals had given her").

Johnny Skeptic

I still do not know what you are trying to prove. Please quote the Scriptures that you are talking about, and state why the Scriptures reasonably prove that the God of the Bible created the earth as opposed to naturalism, some other God, or an advanced alien.

Why would God have cause a continent to break apart when he could have instantly created the finished product?

Is it your position that God instantly created Adam and Eve as finished products? If so, how does that complement Behe's claim that God used part instantaneous creationism and part evolution?

Steviepinhead

Yeah, bo!

In a sun-blasted region of the world where sun-gods were in vogue, who the heck would think of the light coming first.

Or, in an arid region where water availability was critical, who would think of an obscure duality like land'n'water.

C'mon, lee! Actually work at this a little bit, please.