Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RGD · 02-28-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bible Thumper

<edit>

"In the Beginning,"
http://www.hawking.org.uk/pdf/bot.pdf
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html
"God created the heavens"
http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/Big_Bang.htm
"and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/internet/l2.html
"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day."

I'll be back to finish this. Right up to where our Holy Creator creates us in His image.

Spin, it would appear that TBT does indeed regard the Bible as a reliable guide to science as currently understood. This is his thread; I will continue to address him in the fashion he began. Presumably, if the thread strays too far from actual Biblical exegesis, the mods will move it somewhere more appropriate.

TBT - nothing in those links supports your contentions, or your wording. The 'Big Bang' link points out that creation ex nihilo is merely one possibility - and does not ascribe that event to a creator.

The accretion model does NOT indicate that in the beginning water was over the face of the earth - merely that much of the water now on earth originated elsewhere as ice.

The sun certaily got going as a protostar at least long before the earth could support life - so what's your convenient excuse for 'light' before 'sun'?

I understand that you have a highly limited imagination; that you can't conceive of the Bible being wrong. But on the subject of cosmology - it's at best metaphor and at worst nonsense.

If you're going to post links, you should at least post links that have some bearing on what you're trying to assert.

Toto · 02-28-2005, 04:12 PM

Biblical Criticism issues have been split off here so the science discussion can continue in E/C.

Monad · 02-28-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edain55337

Just a question for the Bible Thumper...

What God are you talking about? The ancient war god of the isrealites, the split personality of the christians, or the kill them all god of the islamic faith?

Presumably the "kill them all" god of the biblical literalist faith.

CX · 02-28-2005, 04:54 PM

Let's please stick to the posting guidelines and avoid ad hom criticisim of individual posters.

CX BC&H Moderator

Joe Meert · 02-28-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bible Thumper

God could have had Moses write Genesis to read like this:

The Book of Moses called, GENESIS

JM: Clever, but irrelevant? Why must we read Genesis as a scientific treatise? Is the bible less valid or important to the Christian if he/she cannot marry modern science to Genesis? What's the fascination with trying to harmonize scripture with science?

Cheers

Joe Meert

lpetrich · 02-28-2005, 09:39 PM

Bible Thumper, you may enjoy reading The Flat-Earth Bible:

(after discussing how the Bible presents the Earth as stationary and the sky as a bowl overhead)

Quote:

Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king �saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.� If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to �the earth's farthest bounds,� but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, �Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.� Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: �Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...�

Dark Knight Bob · 02-28-2005, 09:46 PM

I don't see why this holds any more water than any form of philosophy on the creation of the universe written that long ago. I'm sure with enough tinkering you could twist any ancient text to fit todays facts.

It hardly holds water as any form of truth beyond what a bit of basic reasoning from staring up at the stars could accomplish.

scigirl · 02-28-2005, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bible Thumper

God could have had Moses write Genesis to read like this:

The Book of Moses called, GENESIS

Gen. 1:1: In the Beginning, God created the heavens.
Gen. 1:2: At 10-43 Plank time, symmetry breaks. Gravity becomes a distinct force. God creates the Quantum limit of classical general relativity, and saw that it was good.

Well that would have been bad ass, for sure.

Quote:

But, seeing as how His people didn't comprehend concepts such as 1x10-43 or 12 billion (let alone General Relativity, atoms and solar systems)

Shit, only about 10 people on the earth clearly understand these things now (and I'm definitely not one of them).

Quote:

Not bad for a document written 4,000 years ago!

Yes, it's not bad for a document written by fallible men (and a couple women).

scigirl

RGD · 02-28-2005, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scigirl

Yes, it's not bad for a document written by fallible men (and a couple women).

scigirl

Which women?

scigirl · 02-28-2005, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Which women?

Ruth and Esther?

scigirl

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

02-28-2005, 04:12 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Biblical Criticism issues have been split off here so the science discussion can continue in E/C.

02-28-2005, 04:54 PM	#14
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	Let's please stick to the posting guidelines and avoid ad hom criticisim of individual posters. CX BC&H Moderator

02-28-2005, 09:46 PM	#17
Dark Knight Bob Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Surrey, UK Posts: 787	I don't see why this holds any more water than any form of philosophy on the creation of the universe written that long ago. I'm sure with enough tinkering you could twist any ancient text to fit todays facts. It hardly holds water as any form of truth beyond what a bit of basic reasoning from staring up at the stars could accomplish.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.