Albert Cipriani

Dear Sue,
I’ll get to Fiatch’s wearisome “response” as time permits. I’ll take you at your word that you are “straining mightily for the logic here.” I’ll make it clear as pus.

To create a creation myth, Stone Age savages had to start with something. Many started with the moon. Some started with a cow that split in half, out of which the moon proceeded etc. etc. These are all patently false because, as you accuse me of doing, their myth “presumes the conclusion.”

The stumbling start of these myths are only the first problem. They immediately jump to the cow or whatever creating man. Stone Age savages saw men, the moon, and cows. So there you have it! They just re-arranged the order of things and called it their creation myth.

Genesis is unique in that it starts with a description of the pre-universe and gives a chronologically correct description, 9 layers deep, of what happened next. It was written for you Poindexter types. People that want evidence of something otherworldly going on before you’ll deign to get going to church.

Take #8, for example. How did these savages know that creeping life first originated in the sea to creep up onto the land and not the other way around? Take #4 and #5. How did these brain-dead religious fanatics know that the world was completely covered in water before the land emerged? They could have just as easily and more intuitively guessed that the world was all land and then it got rained on for 40 days to create the seven seas. Ooops, I inadvertently introduced another stone aged myth. – Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Jack the Bodiless

...Except that it doesn't. You seem to have developed a reading comprehension problem, Albert.
That is just about the ONLY one that required pure guesswork on their part. The only one they got right, anyhow.

The others, where they got it right, are pretty obvious. Plants before animals? Carnivores eat herbivores, herbivores eat plants, plants come first.
But it WAS all land, and it DID get rained on (for rather more than 40 days) to create the seas!

You think it's good that they got it wrong?

Jack the Bodiless

Let's look at some pairs of events which happened one after the other, and see just how good the authors of Genesis were at guessing the right order:

1. Earth and Light: WRONG.

2. Water and Land: WRONG.

3. Land and Plants: RIGHT, but obvious. Plants and animals have to wait until there's somewhere to put them.

4. Sun/Moon and Plants: WRONG.

5. Land plants and marine life: WRONG.

6. Birds and Land Animals: WRONG.

7. Marine and Land Animals: RIGHT.

8. Land Animals and Man: RIGHT.

Not exactly a good record, is it?

Sue Sponte

The quote was "Let the waters bring forth the creeping creatures having life."

Somebody saw a crab, that's all. Nothing in this statement suggests that "creepting life first originated in the sea". It's merely an observation that creatures crept out of water.

You've omitted the context provided by the following statement, which is "Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind". The "living creatures" (not those creepy crabs) came from the Earth, not the "waters." Reading these two together, the list DOES NOT STATE that all life originated in the sea.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Fiach,
Thanks for the flawed and unnecessary cosmology lesson.

Now, to swat all the flies you let loose:
Yes it could if you didn’t hold to your narrow Poindexter view that light is only that fraction of light that falls within the visible spectrum.

No. It means that you didn’t bother to read my prior post where I stated that it referred to the distillation of dark matter from a state of pure energy… something that occurred way before there was any suns.

Not according to the universally accepted theory of plate tectonics first proposed just 40 years ago. .The weight of the ocean’s coupled with the convection forces of earth’s molten mantel caused some tectonic ridges and trenches to become subduction zones, forcing them to slip under and over one another thereby lifting the ocean’s tectonic plates into the air, creating the continents we’ve come to know and love whose highest mountain tops still show fossil evidence of their being sea beds.

I lied.

I said I would swat ALL your flies. But I grow weary of flailing away at your gnats. ALL your gnats were pre-swatted in my prior post. Go there if you wish to inspect the squashed remains of your objections. Dealing with them anew is just too tedious for me. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic 2/6/03
groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

Mageth

Yes it could if you didn’t hold to your narrow Poindexter view that light is only that fraction of light that falls within the visible spectrum.

Actually, "light" is commonly defined as electromagnetic radiation in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. So it's not a "Poindexter" view; it's the generally accepted definition.

Definition of "light"

7thangel

Fiach said: First you need to prove to me that there was such a thing a creation. I don't accept that notion.

As far as I am concern, we have eyes, ears, noses, skin and mouths that make us experience the same thing I call creation. But in fairness to you, to argue that if it is created or not would be, in fact, hilarious. But my belief that it is created is actually secondary because I could not actually know it in terms of my capacity to know all the fact about it. But, at the very least, I am persuaded by clues, and of the hope of eternal life.

If you have proven that man can make himself live eternally, then I am not stupid not to join you. Granted we are both ignorant of the future, I guess I have the advantage over you because I take account of all possibilities.

Fiach said: The Bible is largely disconnected tribal stories of wars and conquests, atrocities, a very mean killer God, cruelty, and divinely inspired savagery. The creation myths are clearly faerie tales for stone age savages. Paul was a very sick man, suffering from epilepsy, migraine, and likely some form of schizophrenia. That is why his letters are so logically incoherent.

Do we cry for the space shuttle Columbia, or the humans that were on that Shuttle? I mean, we cannot compare the worth of what we create to ourselves. At first look, perhaps, we see the great value of a shuttle. But in the end, the value of human cannot be compared unto it. Same argument I made between man and God. We are actually of no value to God because we are just His mere creation. And, that by His own grace, we were given worth to live.

Is death really a problem? Not really, for the God whom I speak of has the power to resurrect us, and maintain us eternally. That is what we should believe, and that is what Abraham believed when he went to offer his son Isaac. Abraham believed that God could resurrect Isaac, and that he could still receive the promise of having a seed as the sand of the sea.

What then is the point of the evil to exist? It is simply this, that we may have knowledge of God through knowing good and evil. And thus we become in the image of God, knowing good and evil, which actually is a gift. Things that have existed, good and evil, are meant for good to those whom God had chosen. As I have quoted, “all things(good and evil) work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

Take for example Jesus Christ being put to death to save the sinners. Taking it as it is, is surely absurd. But unto us it is a manifestation of the power of the invisible God. Manifested in having knowledge of the future; Christ as being prophesied to suffer. Manifested in having power over life through the resurrection of Christ.

Paul, actually uses history to support his doctrines, and in knowing God. And likewise, Peter and Stephen. The histories are evidences themselves, depending on how you look at them. Unfortunately, there are Christians who posit irrational doctrines. But as far as I am concern, I don’t think irrational, and that my hope of God is not supported by irrational arguments.

Fiach said: As to good and evil, they are terms that I use. I do not use them in terms of good being what God says, and evil being what God forbids. God changes his mind too often. Good and evil are concepts in humans that reflect genetic and cultural memory of what is harmful to self and group and what is beneficial. Beneficial is good, harmful is evil. That is as close to absolutes as we ever get.

If you can conceptualize what is good and evil in my initial post, it is generally different to common Christian doctrines of good and evil. Because in understanding God–Creation relationship, like Inventor–Shuttle Columbia relationship, the concept of good will be totally dependent to God in God-Creation relationship, or the Inventor in the Inventor–Shuttle Columbia relationship.

God does not really change decisions. The debate about predestination among Christians could be one among them; as if God changes decisions according to the change of man’s will to ask of His mercy and obey Him. But actually the chosen people are already numbered and known of God. Sanctification has a lot to do with God speaking as if God changes. You can figure it out this way: there is difference how we speak unto children as to same adults about deep things.

Fiach said: First, we don't know if there is a God at all, let alone whether such a hypothetical being has an aim. We have no choice but to submit to natural laws. Everything that exists is natural, we are natural. To presume that we must submit to a hypothetical being that someone else claims to have power over natural laws is irrational, when that being is unproven. We know of nothing that has power over natural laws. We know of nothing apart from nature. Believing in an improbable hypothetical being is not only a waste of our time, but it prevents humans from rolling up their sleeves and solving their own problems with human effort, not wasting time on prayer or hoping for divine magic.

I actually submit that we do no have the certainty of the facts of God’s existence. The doctrine of predestination itself speaks that we have no ability to know good, how much more know Him wholly. If I, by mine own power, can know all things about God, my salvation would come out as an obligation of God, no more a gift of grace. So there are certain things that are not given for us to understand to justify Himself. In fact, the Bible says, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” And my conclusion is that Quantum Physics, which is a core knowledge of physical things will itself justify the limitation of man’s ability to know the physical realm. I guess it will conclude us to know the existence of other powers on physical things. I do not mean to stop you from searching, but I guess, as far as having no perfect knowledge of all things yet, it is not unwise to HOPE that there is a God.

Fiach said: No, it begs the question of trying to prove a hypothetical being by assuming the existence of that being, then giving not a shred of real evidence.

What is being proven about God is His ability to control, not just man, but of the whole creation. Without such ability, He can therefore be unable to do His promises. I guess the book of Genesis had much anticipated the very question of today’s knowledge about nature. Also, the prophecies are by itself evidences. But the thing is we can see it either coincidental or not. Even if you can theorize to me that the earth had just evolved from the Big Bang, there are still further questions, even to our very nature itself. And if you submit yourself that science can restore you to eternal life, nor submit that you are hopeless of eternal life, knowing we have limited knowledge of science, you are putting yourself in an absurd position. At least to me, that is how I understand it as to how I value eternal life.

God Bless

Albert Cipriani

Duh,
So your point, Mageth, is that the stone-aged fairy tellers should have said: "Let there be electromagnetic radiation"???

You people can't be as dull as you are making yourselves out to be. I know you are smarter than this.

A dead language 4,000 years removed from the spoken word uses a word that scholars interpret to be "light." Never mind that all scholars agree that the concept of "electromagnetic radiation" did not exist 4,000 years ago. If those fairy tellers of Genesis expect us to believe their creation myth, they'd have had to use the word that described a concept neither of which existed in their time nor in any other time up until this last century so that the dim bulb Poindexters of this century might find their fairy tale credible?! Give Me a Break, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Mageth

Not according to the universally accepted theory of plate tectonics first proposed just 40 years ago. .The weight of the ocean’s coupled with the convection forces of earth’s molten mantel caused some tectonic ridges and trenches to become subduction zones, forcing them to slip under and over one another thereby lifting the ocean’s tectonic plates into the air, creating the continents we’ve come to know and love whose highest mountain tops still show fossil evidence of their being sea beds.

Well, not exactly.

It is estimated that the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago, and the oceans formed when the earth had cooled enough (perhaps @4 billion years ago). So the surface was initially "dry", no matter what.

Thrusting into the air of oceanic plates is not how the continents were formed..

The continents (or "continental crustal plates") are actually made of lighter (less dense) material than the oceanic crustal plates, but are generally much thicker. It's the difference in density that causes the contintental plates to slide over the oceanic plates.

From here:

"Geologists believe that the major continental cores were formed by the early solidification of the lighter components of magma between 3.9 and 3.8 billion years ago."

Oceanic rocks are typically quite young deposits, in comparison to the older/oldest rocks of the continental plates. This is because the oceanic plates are continuously being created at the mid-oceanic ridges and subducted at the edge of the continental plates, where the continents push the oceanic plates down into the upper mantle.

Whether the entire surface of the earth was for a period covered with water is not known for sure, as far as I know. I think it's unlikely, but then that's just my opinion.

Mageth

Duh,
So your point, Mageth, is that the stone-aged fairy tellers should have said: "Let there be electromagnetic radiation"???

No. My point is simply to correct your rather puzzling statement, "Yes it could if you didn’t hold to your narrow Poindexter view that light is only that fraction of light that falls within the visible spectrum," when that is the generally accepted definition of light.

You people can't be as dull as you are making yourselves out to be. I know you are smarter than this.

A dead language 4,000 years removed from the spoken word uses a word that scholars interpret to be "light." Never mind that all scholars agree that the concept of "electromagnetic radiation" did not exist 4,000 years ago. If those fairy tellers of Genesis expect us to believe their creation myth, they'd have had to use the word that described a concept neither of which existed in their time nor in any other time up until this last century so that the dim bulb Poindexters of this century might find their fairy tale credible?! Give Me a Break, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Well, I think I understand, and generally agree, with what you're getting at here. I certainly wouldn't expect someone 4000 years ago to have said "Let there be EM radiation." Nor would I have expected them to get the way things came into being in the correct order, which they didn't.