Just Accidental?

[gnostic]

If that is the small minded vision of the way God created, then what can I say? That is your skewed view, not necessarily what the Creator did at all. The way God can construct molecules and atoms is hardly the chore that humans find it to be.

Sorry, but if anyone's view is skewed, it is one who don't understand natural mechanisms (science), and believe in the superstitions, like "God did it", such as those found in Genesis (creation and Flood), Job (God's reply in 38 to 41) and John (Logos or the Word).

Believing in the superstitions, is believing in the supernatural and the unnatural, things that defy the law of nature, such as the creation or the miracles allegedly performed by supposed prophets, messiah, apostles...or by God himself.

 

[Deeje]

Still, this comment makes me think about this:

Numbers 13
Numbers takes place AFTER the Flood. Someone in the bible is confused.

You are right....but it wasn't confusion being displayed here.

Did you notice that Numbers 13:33 mentioned "the sons of Anak" as 'coming from the Nephilim'? That is impossible because every last creature on this earth perished in the flood. So what were assumed to be "Nephilim" were merely a very tall race of people. The Anakim do not have a biological relationship to the Nephilim, but were very large in stature, like them.

The Anakim were a race of people of extraordinary size who inhabited the mountainous regions of Canaan as well as some coastal areas, particularly in the South. At one time three prominent men of the Anakim, that is, Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, resided at Hebron. (Numbers 13:22) It was here that the 12 Hebrew spies first saw the Anakim, and 10 of the spies subsequently gave a frightening report of the experience, alleging that these men were descendants of the pre-Flood Nephilim and that, by comparison with them, the Hebrews were like “grasshoppers.” (Numbers 13:28-33; Deuteronomy 1:28)

The great stature of the Anakim caused them to be used as a standard of comparison in describing even the giant-like men of the Emim and the Rephaim. Their strength apparently produced the proverbial saying: “Who can make a firm stand before the sons of Anak?”(Deuteronomy 2:10, 11, 20, 21; 9:1-3.)

Keep in mind that the 10 cowardly spies in this instance were not exercising faith in their God but looking for excuses not to obey him. Only two of them (Joshua and Caleb) had faith that their God could triumph over what appeared to be overwhelming odds from a human standpoint. These two were the only ones to enter the Promised Land.

 

[Deeje]

↑
"Did males and females "evolve" separately? If they did, what did they do to reproduce before the sexual function was fully equipped for the task? Please explain...

From here
Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1.2 billion years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.[60] All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a single-celled common ancestor.[1][53][61][56] There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as Bdelloidea and some parthenocarpic plants.

Talk to me about animate, living, breathing creatures. All of that assumption is from the ones who promote evolution as a fact when we all know that they are only guessing about what they think "might have" happened when no one was around to document the process.....all except the one who actually designed and manufactured all of it, and left us a simple explanation about how he did it....but y'all feel free to completely ignore his testimony because it isn't "scientific" enough for you.

You might have descended from a plant, but I didn't. If you want to believe that microbes can become dinosaurs as long as you throw enough zeros into the pot, then you are welcome to that fantasy.

 

[Deeje]

Yet you keep posting non-parasitic lifeforms. Come back to me when you feel something like this is a beautiful thing. (graphic ... don't eat while watching, LOL)

If you have kept up with the postings here you will see that there is a reason why things are not as God designed them at present. There is way more in the parasitic world to appreciate, than to dread.

There are lots of parasites in existence, many of them are even symbiotic and beneficial. A human embryo is a parasite.

Good parasite, bad parasite: nature has a job for everyone

The ones that do not (at present) appear to be beneficial may well have adapted to man's imperfection. The human immune system is designed to keep out such invaders, but because it does not function optimally, it allows them a foot in the door and an opportunity to set up house.

The Bible addresses all these concerns by telling us that when God resumes his rulership over this earth, all will be fixed. (Isaiah 33:24; Revelation 21:2-4)

 

[gnostic]

Did you notice that Numbers 13:33 mentioned "the sons of Anak" as 'coming from the Nephilim'? That is impossible because every last creature on this earth perished in the flood. So what were assumed to be "Nephilim" were merely a very tall race of people. The Anakim do not have a biological relationship to the Nephilim, but were very large in stature, like them.

And yet, the guy who SUPPOSEDLY wrote Numbers 13 being the same guy who wrote who SUPPOSEDLY wrote Genesis 6 - Moses - has contradicted himself.

But contradictions can occur in the same chapter.

For instance, in Genesis 7, verses 4, 12 & 17, it took 40 days (and 40 nights) to flood the earth, including the highest mountains, wiping all creatures, including humans, except those that are with him in the ark. And yet in the very last verse - 7:24 - it stated that the flooding had continued to 150 days:

24 And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days.

If it took 40 days to reach the peak of flooding, to cover the highest mountains by some cubits (15 cubits), then why would it (flood) need to "swell" for 150 days?

The next chapter (8), Genesis continues with the "150 days" (8:3):

[QUOTE="Genesis 8:1-3]1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and all the domestic animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided; 2 the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters gradually receded from the earth. At the end of one hundred fifty days the waters had abated;[/QUOTE]

Clearly in 7:24 and in 8:2-3 (150 days), the water (rain and fountains) didn't stop until the 150th day, not 40 days. In fact, starting with 7:24 verse, all succeeding verses seemed to have forgotten the original "40 days".

It would seem that 2 different people wrote the Flood story, instead of one person.

So which is it? 40 days or 150 days?

So if Numbers 13:33 about sons of Anak being descendants of nephilim contradicted Genesis 6:4, then how is the contradiction even considered to be surprising?

I have mentioned to someone else (Shadow Wolf, in another thread) that there are some contradictions that are translation-based contradictions.

In another example of Genesis, concerning the genealogy of Adam to Noah (Genesis 5).

Now in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (as well as Latin translation, the Vulgate Bible), in which most modern English translations are based on, it provides the ages of when each patriarch became father to his son and successor, eg Adam became father to Seth at age 130.

But in the Greek translation, in the Septuagint Bible, it would frequently tack a hundred years to each patriarch, eg Adam was Age 230 years instead of 130 years, when he became father again with Seth. The additional 100 years being added to the following patiarchs before Noah are, from Adam to Enoch.

These years of generations in Genesis 5 can give us the timeline for when the Flood occurred. And the flood occurred at different time, depending on the translations.

The calculations to Genesis 5, plus Noah's 600-year when he boarded the Ark, Masoretic Text (MT) gives us 1656 AM (Anno Mundi, from the time of creation of Adam).

But in the Greek Septuagint, we have two main editions:

1. Codex Vaticanus (Flood at 2242 AM)
2. Codex Alexandrinus (Flood at 2262 AM)

The timelines differed to MT.

My points to Shadow Wolf (@ Evidences for and against young earth creationism) is with Noah's grandfather, Methuselah, who died 14 years (2256 AM) after the Flood (2242 AM) in Septuagint Vaticanus, but in Septuagint Alexandrinus, he died 6 years (2256 AM) before the Flood (2262 AM). Also the Vaticanus gives Methuselah's age to 167 (as father to Lamech) instead of 187 in Alexandrinus and MT.

But in MT, Methuselah died on the same year as the Flood.

Clearly, there are some errors. Contradictions can occurred contextually or due to scribal errors.

 

[Deeje]

And yet, the guy who SUPPOSEDLY wrote Numbers 13 being the same guy who wrote who SUPPOSEDLY wrote Genesis 6 - Moses - has contradicted himself.

I don't know what translation you are using but the story is clearly written.....it isn't Moses making the statement....its what the 10 faithless spies are saying. He was quoting their words verbatim, and it is they who said that the Nephilim were in the land. You can read the words without giving them much thought, but that is what Bible study is for....anyone can do Bible reading. Study goes deeper than a superficial understanding.

According to Strongs the word "Nephilim" means...."properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:—giant."
So anyone of unusual size, especially if they were of violent disposition, could be deemed "Nephilim".

Numbers 13:25-35:
"The men went back to Moses, Aaron, and the entire Israelite community....They reported to Moses: “We went into the land where you sent us. Indeed it is flowing with milk and honey, and here is some of its fruit. However, the people living in the land are strong, and the cities are large and fortified. We also saw the descendants of Anak there.....Then Caleb quieted the people in the presence of Moses and said, “We must go up and take possession of the land because we can certainly conquer it!”


But the men who had gone up with him responded, “We can’t go up against the people because they are stronger than we are!” So they gave a negative report to the Israelites about the land they had scouted: “The land we passed through to explore is one that devours its inhabitants, and all the people we saw in it are men of great size. We even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim! To ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and we must have seemed the same to them." (HCSB)

Moses, reporting what was said by the faithless spies, is not a contradiction, but simply an inaccurate conclusion reached by the 10 cowardly spies.

But contradictions can occur in the same chapter.

For instance, in Genesis 7, verses 4, 12 & 17, it took 40 days (and 40 nights) to flood the earth, including the highest mountains, wiping all creatures, including humans, except those that are with him in the ark. And yet in the very last verse - 7:24 - it stated that the flooding had continued to 150 days:

If it took 40 days to reach the peak of flooding, to cover the highest mountains by some cubits (15 cubits), then why would it (flood) need to "swell" for 150 days?

The next chapter (8), Genesis continues with the "150 days" (8:3):

"Genesis 8:1-3
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and all the domestic animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided; 2 the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters gradually receded from the earth. At the end of one hundred fifty days the waters had abated;

Clearly in 7:24 and in 8:2-3 (150 days), the water (rain and fountains) didn't stop until the 150th day, not 40 days. In fact, starting with 7:24 verse, all succeeding verses seemed to have forgotten the original "40 days".

It would seem that 2 different people wrote the Flood story, instead of one person.

So which is it? 40 days or 150 days?

Again, a careful reading of the account clarifies what happened....

Genesis 7:4, 12, 17....
4) Seven days from now I will make it rain on the earth 40 days and 40 nights, and I will wipe off from the face of the earth every living thing I have made.”
12) "and the rain fell on the earth 40 days and 40 nights.
17) "The flood continued for 40 days on the earth; the waters increased and lifted up the ark so that it rose above the earth."

So after 40 days, the ark was afloat with no land in sight.....

Now what about verse 24?
"And the waters surged on the earth 150 days."

So, the situation stayed that way for 150 days.
This is clearly saying that the rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights, but that the waters continued to swell (as floodwaters often do) after the rain stopped. The waters did not only come from the sky...they also came from underground.

Genesis 7:11-12:
"In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the sources of the watery depths burst open, the floodgates of the sky were opened, 12 and the rain fell on the earth 40 days and 40 nights."

A more careful reading reveals more detail.

So if Numbers 13:33 about sons of Anak being descendants of nephilim contradicted Genesis 6:4, then how is the contradiction even considered to be surprising?

There is no contradiction....it is just bad interpretation from superficial reading, leading to a wrong conclusion.

I have mentioned to someone else (Shadow Wolf, in another thread) that there are some contradictions that are translation-based contradictions.

In another example of Genesis, concerning the genealogy of Adam to Noah (Genesis 5).

Now in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (as well as Latin translation, the Vulgate Bible), in which most modern English translations are based on, it provides the ages of when each patriarch became father to his son and successor, eg Adam became father to Seth at age 130.

But in the Greek translation, in the Septuagint Bible, it would frequently tack a hundred years to each patriarch, eg Adam was Age 230 years instead of 130 years, when he became father again with Seth. The additional 100 years being added to the following patiarchs before Noah are, from Adam to Enoch.

These years of generations in Genesis 5 can give us the timeline for when the Flood occurred. And the flood occurred at different time, depending on the translations.

The calculations to Genesis 5, plus Noah's 600-year when he boarded the Ark, Masoretic Text (MT) gives us 1656 AM (Anno Mundi, from the time of creation of Adam).

But in the Greek Septuagint, we have two main editions:

1. Codex Vaticanus (Flood at 2242 AM)
2. Codex Alexandrinus (Flood at 2262 AM)

The timelines differed to MT.

My points to Shadow Wolf (@ Evidences for and against young earth creationism) is with Noah's grandfather, Methuselah, who died 14 years (2256 AM) after the Flood (2242 AM) in Septuagint Vaticanus, but in Septuagint Alexandrinus, he died 6 years (2256 AM) before the Flood (2262 AM). Also the Vaticanus gives Methuselah's age to 167 (as father to Lamech) instead of 187 in Alexandrinus and MT.

But in MT, Methuselah died on the same year as the Flood.

Clearly, there are some errors. Contradictions can occurred contextually or due to scribal errors.

Again, a clear reading of the scriptures reveals one logical conclusion. Noah and his family (his wife and their three sons and daughters-in-law) were the sole survivors of the flood. That rules out Noah's grandfather being alive at the time of the flood.....at 969, he was the oldest living human on record. You don't have to pick a manuscript......just read what the scriptures say and use your common sense.

 

[Deeje]

You think you know where the bus comes from because you read the badge...it is from a reputable company....right? What if the badge is phony, put on by a rival bus company who sold you a faulty piece of machinery that they knew would explode after 50,000 miles on the clock?

You can still investigate and determine the papers are lying by finding the actual chain of manufacture.

I mean, go find a grease monkey nerd: they can tell you where an engine came from just by glancing at it.

Ah, but what if you trusted the badge and therefore never questioned it? There is no need to find a grease monkey, is there?

That would be like driving a "Ford" with a "Lamborghini" badge on it. The outside has been modified to look just like the real thing, but the nuts and bolts are junk. No one knows until it breaks down.

 

[Deeje]

You have often claimed that the great thing about going to heaven is that it is free from suffering, but a HUGE rebellion shows that not to be the case at all.

I don't think I have mentioned going to heaven...why would I? I don't believe that the majority of humankind will ever go to heaven....that is not where God put us originally and I can't see where he changed his mind about where we would spend eternity.....(Isaiah 55:11) He will complete what he began in Eden.
It is suffering that occurs on earth that we want to see the end of. (Revelation 21:2-4)

Since the Lord's Prayer states that God's will is going to be "done on earth as it is in heaven"....that is pretty much confirmation that heaven is the place where God's will dominates. It is true that satan and his hordes were permitted access to heaven for a while (Job 1:6; 2:1) but in Revelation we see him being kicked out of heaven and down here to the earth to do his best to take mankind away from God during this "short period of time". (Revelation 12:7-12)
He will only succeed with those who are weak in faith.....and it's a pity that this describes the majority of people at this point in time. Any wonder Jesus said that "few" would be saved. (Matthew 7:13-14) Most prefer the 'easy' road.

No Second Coming (or is it the Third, as he technically returned 3 days later?)?

There was no 'second coming' at Christ's resurrection. The second coming is tied in with monumental world events such as we see happening on the earth right now. The kingdom is "coming" ready or not (Daniel 2:44) and those who know God, as opposed to those who might know something about him, may get through the most terrible tribulation in the world's history, which the Bible indicates is rapidly approaching.....it will not be for the weak in faith. (Matthew 24:13, 21)

Peter's words are sobering....
"None of you, however, should suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or a meddler. 16 But if anyone suffers as a “Christian,” he should not be ashamed but should glorify God in having that name. 17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with God’s household, and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who disobey the gospel of God?
18 And if a righteous person is saved with difficulty, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?
19 So those who suffer according to God’s will should, while doing what is good, entrust themselves to a faithful Creator."
We show by our life course where our trust is. God's judgment begins with those who claim to be his own, and then progress to those who deny him. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)

You believe your doctrines as fact and you eschew any academic study of facts. You brag about ignorance, so you don't get to say you can differentiate fact versus belief.

I reject any falsely interpreted "evidence" that claims to be truth when there is not a shred of solid evidence to back it up except what scientists "suggest" "might have" happened.

I don't claim my beliefs as facts because beliefs are not even in the same category....but evolutionary science has not made that distinction. It has beliefs too but passes them off as facts along with really good diagrams and computer animated graphics that can fool people into believing a lie.

Everyone is free to make their choices concerning their beliefs...but please just call them what they are. Stop pretending that they are facts. There are no facts.

 

[Deeje]

Now, tell us what is wrong with this scenario and tell us what actually happened.If you want us to believe your god created something you have to come up with a logical and rational explanation of how he did it for us to believe.

Well, you see, I don't have to do any of that. All I have to do is tell it like it is. Whether you believe anything I say or find it "logical or rational" is of little consequence to me or my God.

If we are of the right heart condition (figuratively speaking) which means we will demonstrate the opposite traits to our first ancestor, Adam, we will not be easily swayed by propaganda or arguments that appeal to self-interest. Those who genuinely search for God with the right motives will find him.....those who think he owes them something will be very disappointed.

We need him...he doesn't need us. His plans will go ahead with us or without us.

Maybe you haven't reached kindergarten level and are happy with the overly simplistic "explanation" in Genesis but I'm not.

I haven't found anything that God has done to be over simplistic...in fact there is a lot of detail lost on those who don't want to know about him. His actions are deep and very pictorial at times, yet he reveals his purpose to his worshippers....and they are content to look like fools in this world (Like Noah was in his day).....I believe that it won't be for much longer though.
I'll let God know your demands.....he may get back to you shortly...or not.

Remember... you even managed to ask if I thought water happened or evolved and asked me to "explain water". I'm not providing any more actual scientific explanations for a person who hasn't reached kindergarten level yet.

I thought that someone of your level of scientific knowledge could at least tell me the scientific explanation of water and how it got here on this very wet planet, and yet is apparently lacking on others in our solar system? It is the most important component of life here on earth...the main 'ingredient' on which all living things depend. What is water ArtieE, and why is it different in its freezing capacity to all other liquids? What would happen if it froze like other liquids at the Poles? Why are the properties of water so amazing? All three presentations are unique and useful.......is that all just accidental?

I have asked these questions before but no satisfying answers have been forthcoming.

 

[Shad]

Well, what's hilarious is that you don't know why. Hint: it has nothing to do with ineptitude.

Then it was planned thus Adam, Eve and the idea of original sin is God's problem, no one else. I am just pointing out of poor your reasoning and that of the Bible is

Don't strain yourself trying to imagine what possible reason God could have for doing what he did. It is obviously beyond your comprehension....so we will just leave it as a mystery.

Nonsense. I can look at the Bible and see what a mess a lot of it's ideas and claims are. You just want God to be beyond comprehension so you do not need to think about nor resolve issues with the text nor your God

Talk about ignorant.......

If God is beyond comprehension then your statement is moot and you are in the same boat of ignorance as I am. However unlike you I do not accept these convent answers that dodge issues with the text

Again...if you think so...then it must be right, so why argue?

Without a concept of good and evil one can not say disobedience is wrong. You just never thought about that as you posted your tripe

I don't know what makes you think they had no concept of right and wrong?

Your own post says as much. If the tree of good and evil provides knowledge of both, thus morality, then prior to consuming the fruit they do not have the concept of either. If they had knowledge of both then this tree is redundant and your little story collapses.

They knew it was not only "wrong", but stupid to disobey a command that had the death penalty attached to it.

You contradict yourself. If they had no knowledge of good and evil they had no knowledge of right and wrong.

You flatter yourself.....no matter how well I address them, and I could go on for pages...you would still find the same old faults, not wanting to see past the end of your nose.....that's OK.

Yawn* Assertions, nothing more.

You go on believing whatever it is that makes you feel good. I have no desire to communicate with you further.

Poor pumpkin.... When you arguments come under scrutiny you blame the critic then retreat from the discussion.

 

[gnostic]

I guess you must be devoid of imagination.....please read the account again. If "light" was apparent on the "first day" then what is Earth's only light source?

Also on "day one" was the differentiation in light from darkness....which God called "day and night". What causes day and night Gnostic? I am guessing that it is Earth's 24 hour rotation.....Earth is also in orbit around the sun. So I am assuming that the very first verse in Genesis is clearly in keeping with what we already know.... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". What are "the heavens" in this statement?
I assume that they include all that is in the heavens.....the entire universe, of which Earth is but a tiny speck.

Again, Genesis 1:3-5 make no mention of the Sun. The Sun is only mentioned in Genesis 1:14-18.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.

Here, Genesis saying the sky is a dome, because that how ancient people (including ancient astronomers) thought the Sun, stars and moon was placed in the dome. The dome included cloud and atmosphere, as revealed on Day 2, where God supposedly separate the water from above (sky) from the the water below (sea). The sky has many different names, like roof, vault, ceiling, dome (as I said before), firmament, expanse, etc.

There are no notions that the Earth revolve around the Sun too, ANYWHERE in the whole bible.

You are making assumption that the Earth revolve around the Sun, because we have benefits of technology that are allow for observation.

Only the ancient Greek and HIndu astronomers independently came up with the idea of heliocentric planetary motion, but it was never a popular astronomy model until the development of the telescopes.

Almost all civilisations believed that the Earth was the centre, with the Sun and planets revolving around the Earth, known as geocentric planetary model. The ancient Jewish and Christian astronomers were no different in this regards.

Literary proof that the scriptures accepted the geocentric model. Look at Joshua, when God supposedly stopped the Sun and moon from moving, while battle was raging. This clearly demonstrated that the ancient Israelites and the author of Joshua never thought the Earth can rotate:

12 On the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the Lord; and he said in the sight of Israel,

“Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.”
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

I know that you wouldn't consider the Book of Enoch being canonical, but it revealed the level of understanding of pre-Christian Judaism, which were influential in shaping Christianity.

In 2 Enoch, the author thought that the Sun moved by angels, to traverse the sky, from east to west. They view that the sun will rise from one horizon and set in the opposite horizon, but never thought that it was the Earth rotating on its axis.

Reading the Genesis creation is all about context, not my imagination or your imagination, Deeje. You can project your imagination onto the passages, but that would simply be your interpretation, your personal opinion.

What you lack is integrity in scholarship.

 

[Deeje]

Then it was planned thus Adam, Eve and the idea of original sin is God's problem, no one else. I am just pointing out of poor your reasoning and that of the Bible is



Nonsense. I can look at the Bible and see what a mess a lot of it's ideas and claims are. You just want God to be beyond comprehension so you do not need to think about nor resolve issues with the text nor your God



If God is beyond comprehension then your statement is moot and you are in the same boat of ignorance as I am. However unlike you I do not accept these convent answers that dodge issues with the text



Without a concept of good and evil one can not say disobedience is wrong. You just never thought about that as you posted your tripe



Your own post says as much. If the tree of good and evil provides knowledge of both, thus morality, then prior to consuming the fruit they do not have the concept of either. If they had knowledge of both then this tree is redundant and your little story collapses.



You contradict yourself. If they had no knowledge of good and evil they had no knowledge of right and wrong.




Yawn* Assertions, nothing more.



Poor pumpkin.... When you arguments come under scrutiny you blame the critic then retreat from the discussion.

You can think whatever you like.......no point in

I have nothing to prove to you.

BTW you are not the only one who can

 

[Deeje]

Again, Genesis 1:3-5 make no mention of the Sun. The Sun is only mentioned in Genesis 1:

Was that a typo? You don't think that when God said "Let there be light" that he was referring to the only source of light that planet earth has? God already said he created the heavens and the earth, which would include the sun. Is this somehow NOT backed up by science?

Here, Genesis saying the sky is a dome, because that how ancient people (including ancient astronomers) thought the Sun, stars and moon was placed in the dome. The dome included cloud and atmosphere, as revealed on Day 2, where God supposedly separate the water from above (sky) from the the water below (sea). The sky has many different names, like roof, vault, ceiling, dome (as I said before), firmament, expanse, etc.

There are no notions that the Earth revolve around the Sun too, ANYWHERE in the whole bible.

Not sure that I ever said it was in the Bible...it is just something we know that the Bible has never disputed in a single passage. Galileo knew something that the church didn't. What does that tell you? Not that the Bible was wrong but that men misinterpreted it.

From an earthling's perspective, the sky does appear to be a dome. It accurately describes earth's atmosphere from a human standpoint though, doesn't it?

Literary proof that the scriptures accepted the geocentric model. Look at Joshua, when God supposedly stopped the Sun and moon from moving, while battle was raging. This clearly demonstrated that the ancient Israelites and the author of Joshua never thought the Earth can rotate:

Does it? It simply suggests to me that the Creator of this earth can make time stand still if he wishes. Do you have reason to believe he cannot? Does he have some kind of limitation that means he cannot manipulate his own creation? You seem to have a very limited view of God's power.

Reading the Genesis creation is all about context, not my imagination or your imagination, Deeje. You can project your imagination onto the passages, but that would simply be your interpretation, your personal opinion.

What you lack is integrity in scholarship.

You seem to lack any knowledge of the immense power of the Almighty or how he uses his spirit to accomplish his will.

The Bible interprets itself....it is only when humans put limits on God and try to constrain him that doubts begin to erode faith in his capabilities. He has no limits. Who told you he did?

 

[ArtieE]

I thought that someone of your level of scientific knowledge could at least tell me the scientific explanation of water and how it got here on this very wet planet, and yet is apparently lacking on others in our solar system? It is the most important component of life here on earth...the main 'ingredient' on which all living things depend. What is water ArtieE, and why is it different in its freezing capacity to all other liquids? What would happen if it froze like other liquids at the Poles? Why are the properties of water so amazing? All three presentations are unique and useful.......is that all just accidental?

I have asked these questions before but no satisfying answers have been forthcoming.

That is because scientific explanations don't work for people with a hyperactive agency-detecting device that can't be turned off. Sorry for the long quote below but it really goes a long way to explain how a mind like Deeje's works.

"Picture this: You're a human being living many thousands of years ago. You're out on the plains of the Serengeti, sitting around, waiting for an antelope to walk by so you can kill it for dinner. All of a sudden, you see the grasses in front of you rustling. What do you do? Do you stop and think about what might be causing the rustling (the wind or a lion, for example), or do you immediately take some kind of action?

"On the plains of the Serengeti, it would be better to not sit around and reflect. People who took their time got selected out," Clark told Live Science. Humans who survived to procreate were those who had developed what evolutionary scientists call a hypersensitive agency-detecting device, or HADD, he said.

In short, HADD is the mechanism that lets humans perceive that many things have "agency," or the ability to act of their own accord. This understanding of how the world worked facilitated the rapid decision-making process that humans had to go through when they heard a rustling in the grass. (Lions act of their own accord. Better run.)

But in addition to helping humans make rational decisions, HADD may have planted the seeds for religious thought. In addition to attributing agency to lions, for example, humans started attributing agency to things that really didn't have agency at all. [5 Ways Our Caveman Instincts Get the Best of Us]

"You might think that raindrops aren't agents," Clark said. "They can't act of their own accord. They just fall. And clouds just form; they're not things that can act. But what human beings have done is to think that clouds are agents. They think [clouds] can act," Clark said of early humans.

And then humans took things to a whole new level. They started attributing meaning to the actions of things that weren't really acting of their own accord. For example, they thought raindrops were "acting for a purpose," Clark said.

Acting for a purpose is the basis for what evolutionary scientists call the Theory of Mind (ToM) — another idea that's often cited in discussions about the origins of religion. By attributing intention or purpose to the actions of beings that did have agency, like other people, humans stopped simply reacting as quickly as possible to the world around them — they started anticipating what other beings' actions might be and planning their own actions accordingly. (Being able to sort of get into the mind of another purposeful being is what Theory of Mind is all about.)

ToM was very helpful to early humans. It enabled them to discern other people's positive and negative intentions (e.g., "Does that person want to mate with me or kill me and steal my food?"), thereby increasing their own chances of survival.

But when people started attributing purpose to the actions of nonactors, like raindrops, ToM took a turn toward the supernatural. [Infographic: Americans' Beliefs in Paranormal Phenomena]

"The roaring threat of a thunderstorm or the devastation of a flood is widely seen across cultures as the product of a dangerous personal agent in the sky or river, respectively," said Allen Kerkeslager, an associate professor in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia."Likewise, the movements of the sun, moon and stars are widely explained as the movements of personal agents with extraordinary powers,"Kerkeslager told Live Science in an email.

This tendency to explain the natural world through the existence of beings with supernatural powers — things like gods, ancestral spirits, goblins and fairies — formed the basis for religious beliefs, according to many cognitive scientists. Collectively, some scientists refer to HADD and ToM as the "god faculty," Clark said.

In fact, human beings haven't evolved past this way of thinking and making decisions, he added.

"Now, we understand better that the things we thought were agents aren't agents," Clark said. "You can be educated out of some of these beliefs, but you can't be educated out of these cognitive faculties. We all have a hyperactive agency-detecting device. We all have a theory of mind."
The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs Evolved

 

[Sapiens]

Yet the whole "theory" is based on conjecture and supposition backed up by biased "interpretation" of evidence that just happens to agree with the theory......you think we don't notice this?

Theories are not based on either conjecture or supposition, so your comments are irrelevant.

Weight of numbers carries no weight with the Creator who really has no time for those who have no time for him, or who fail to appreciate his creative genius. But that is of course, of no interest to you.

Since the weight of numbers a creator is zero, that too is irrelevant.

"Semantics"? I was giving you the true original definition of the word. If science wants to make out that a theory is actually akin to a fact, then may I suggest that it uses a more appropriate descriptor. Perhaps a "factory" would be more appropriate to describe the 'manufacture' of evidence so prevalent in evolutionary science....? Since when does "could have" mean "must have"?

"Theory" comes originally from the Ancient Greek, "theōros" meaning "spectator" or "witness." That argues against your interpretation, which is, like most of your comments, irrelevant since your alleged "true original definition" is meaningless. Words, especially in English, change meaning over time and the community is which they are used.

I really don't care what men of science are saying....a lie is a lie no matter who tells it......and saying that a theory is the same as a fact is bold face lying.

That is quite impossible since since does not deal in "facts," something that has been explained to you many, many, times.

You think men and women of intelligence are incapable of telling lies? Of falsifying or misinterpreting evidence?

No I do not, but you do seen to think that your coreligionists are.

 

[Sapiens]

You're making a commendable effort here Deeje, I often lose interest when people start getting ad hominid, calling you a liar etc- there seems little point in trying to debate anything- but that's probably just lazy of me.

I was born and raised atheist, like some posters here, I was often quite rude and patronizing to people with other beliefs. But the fact that they invariably showed me more patience and understanding than I showed them, at least opened my heart to their point of view eventually. I'm very grateful now they did, but those people never knew it.

So I've no doubt that your efforts on this forum are not in vain!

You have been repeatedly revealed as a quote miner, and thus a liar, so your pretensions fool no one.

 

[Sapiens]

Well, seeing as how these kinds of threads have many readers but relatively few posters, (over 20,500 views so far) it shows that people are eager to hear both sides of this story. Its not hard to see who has to use condescension, rather than hard evidence, to make themselves feel or sound superior. I feel that observable facts in nature outweigh "scientific" conjecture and supposition any day. If science says it doesn't deal in facts, then why present their findings (interpretation of their evidence) as if they were undeniably true?

Your assumption that people are here for any reason save watching your train wreck is akin to an ant crawling up the butt of an elephant with rape on it's mind.

Thank you for your input, it has been good having your experience and knowledge shared here. So as long as people want to read the exchanges, I shall keep posting in defense of ID and exposing the ToE as the concocted fraud that it is.
Thank you for the encouragement.

Feel free to stick around.....

Birds of a feather.

 

[Sapiens]

Who is "we"? And who says my statements need correcting?

You can read it as the majority here, the scientific community, 95% of the National Academy of Sciences or just my use of the "royal we" your need for correction is clear in any case.

What are you going to do if there is a Creator Sapiems? I don't think he accepts apologies.

Pascal's Wager is a stupid construct, always has been, always will be.

Actually stating a suggestion or educated guesswork as if it were a fact, is lying.

As has been pointed out numerous times, that is quite impossible.

That is getting old Sapiens.....is this your only defense?
"I must be right because I tell the truth and you don't"? Really?

Who said that you are telling the truth?

What's getting old is you continued prevarication and denial of the obvious.

Someone who lies is deliberately telling untruths. Since my Creator takes a dim view of liars,

Then "you in a heap of trouble, Lucy."

I try really hard to be as truthful as possible.

That is, self-evidently, another lie.

My view is not a lie just because you don't believe it.

Correct, it is a lie because you are misrepresenting things that others believe.

All the language in evolution is speculative in the articles I have read, regardless of the specific subject.
Is a "probability" the same as a "certainty"?

No it is not. As have been explained to you many times, science does not claim to deal in "certainty."

If there is no certainty, then how can the ToE be presented as though it is a fact?

I never present it as "fact" only as closely approaching fact at it's limit, that is to say, very, very, very, probable.

Teach it as a theory by all means, but don't pretend that you know it's true just because you believe the "interpretation of the "evidence".

I do teach it as a theory.

That places you on the same lever as us. You have an unprovable belief and so do we....the probability points us in opposite directions is all.

No, that means that the likelihood of my views a 99.99999999999999999999% (or so) and that you get the difference between that and 100. We are not even-steven on the field, so stop pretending that we are.

Saying that there is no proof of an Intelligent Creator is nonsense because the proof is all around you.

Yet ... neither you nor any of your fellow travelers can make a coherent case to it. Bad show.

Interpreting it in a different way alters nothing. You all refuse to acknowledge his handiwork is all.
Walking around with your eyes closed is another way of saying "I am blind by choice".

I will grant that I am 0.0000000000000000001% blind (but not by choice) but that means that you are 99.99999999999999999999% blind by choice.

My conscience is clear and so is my hope for the future.....what do you have to look forward to?

Living a good life and dying without the egotism of blind hope that you are cursed with.

 

[Deeje]

That is because scientific explanations don't work for people with a hyperactive agency-detecting device that can't be turned off. Sorry for the long quote below but it really goes a long way to explain how a mind like Deeje's works.

Hmmmm..."a hyperactive agency-detecting device". Sounds like a sophisticated piece of technology....is there an app for that?

So you have to psychoanalyze me to explain how my mind works?

And you have to use the opinion of a "Christian Philosopher" (as if that description alone is not an oxymoron?) Christian belief is not the product of human philosophy. It does not rely on human reasoning or on agreement among other errant philosophers. Christian belief has nothing to do with the intellect, and more to do with the figurative heart. Believe me, God does not care how intelligent you think you are...or how intelligent other people think you are. He is looking for those who acknowledge his sovereignty over them, who know how to keep the faith, obey his commands, and who can stand up for the truth, despite what the rest of the world is doing.

Do Clark's words somehow cancel out the words of the Creator? They never will to me. You can believe him on this issue, if it floats your boat...it will never float mine. He seems like a reasonable sort of fellow but I disagree with what you quoted.

Do you have a similar analysis on how a mind like your own works? If, not, why not? You assume the superior position as if you can prove anything you say, more than I can....I an left to assume you can't because you do not address my questions.

"Picture this: You're a human being living many thousands of years ago. You're out on the plains of the Serengeti, sitting around, waiting for an antelope to walk by so you can kill it for dinner. All of a sudden, you see the grasses in front of you rustling. What do you do? Do you stop and think about what might be causing the rustling (the wind or a lion, for example), or do you immediately take some kind of action?

"On the plains of the Serengeti, it would be better to not sit around and reflect. People who took their time got selected out," Clark told Live Science. Humans who survived to procreate were those who had developed what evolutionary scientists call a hypersensitive agency-detecting device, or HADD, he said.

In short, HADD is the mechanism that lets humans perceive that many things have "agency," or the ability to act of their own accord. This understanding of how the world worked facilitated the rapid decision-making process that humans had to go through when they heard a rustling in the grass. (Lions act of their own accord. Better run.)

But in addition to helping humans make rational decisions, HADD may have planted the seeds for religious thought. In addition to attributing agency to lions, for example, humans started attributing agency to things that really didn't have agency at all. [5 Ways Our Caveman Instincts Get the Best of Us]

"You might think that raindrops aren't agents," Clark said. "They can't act of their own accord. They just fall. And clouds just form; they're not things that can act. But what human beings have done is to think that clouds are agents. They think [clouds] can act," Clark said of early humans.

And then humans took things to a whole new level. They started attributing meaning to the actions of things that weren't really acting of their own accord. For example, they thought raindrops were "acting for a purpose," Clark said.

Acting for a purpose is the basis for what evolutionary scientists call the Theory of Mind (ToM) — another idea that's often cited in discussions about the origins of religion. By attributing intention or purpose to the actions of beings that did have agency, like other people, humans stopped simply reacting as quickly as possible to the world around them — they started anticipating what other beings' actions might be and planning their own actions accordingly. (Being able to sort of get into the mind of another purposeful being is what Theory of Mind is all about.)

ToM was very helpful to early humans. It enabled them to discern other people's positive and negative intentions (e.g., "Does that person want to mate with me or kill me and steal my food?"), thereby increasing their own chances of survival.

But when people started attributing purpose to the actions of nonactors, like raindrops, ToM took a turn toward the supernatural. [Infographic: Americans' Beliefs in Paranormal Phenomena]

"The roaring threat of a thunderstorm or the devastation of a flood is widely seen across cultures as the product of a dangerous personal agent in the sky or river, respectively," said Allen Kerkeslager, an associate professor in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia."Likewise, the movements of the sun, moon and stars are widely explained as the movements of personal agents with extraordinary powers,"Kerkeslager told Live Science in an email.

This tendency to explain the natural world through the existence of beings with supernatural powers — things like gods, ancestral spirits, goblins and fairies — formed the basis for religious beliefs, according to many cognitive scientists. Collectively, some scientists refer to HADD and ToM as the "god faculty," Clark said.

In fact, human beings haven't evolved past this way of thinking and making decisions, he added.

"Now, we understand better that the things we thought were agents aren't agents," Clark said. "You can be educated out of some of these beliefs, but you can't be educated out of these cognitive faculties. We all have a hyperactive agency-detecting device. We all have a theory of mind."
The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs Evolved

Nice try, but it explains nothing but belief in a stone age man as our common ancestor. I don't believe in cave men. I do not believe in a slow descent from ape to human. That is your fantasy.
I believe that cave dwellers existed in past ages just as they do now in some remote parts of the earth, but mankind in general have never been less intelligent.....looking at the engineering feats of the ancients, makes me think that they were more adept at construction than we are, considering they had no computers or machinery to do their work.

Clark's is the opinion of one man....schooled in this world's "knowledge". I believe that Paul's closing words in his first letter to Timothy reveal God's contempt for that kind of knowledge.....

1 Timothy 6:20-21:
"Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” 21 By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith."

How many have deviated from the faith by believing that "falsely called knowledge"? Who likes to make a "show" of such knowledge? What has replaced belief in God? All hope now rests with men.....the very ones who are bringing all life on this planet to the verge of extinction. Is man better off without God? Is he happier? More well adjusted? Can he provide for those who are destitute, starving, displaced and who live in abject poverty. Can he cure disease and stop wars? He could if his greed and his pride did not foil all attempts to do so.
.....look around you and see where tossing out the Creator's rules has led us.

 

[Deeje]

"Theory" comes originally from the Ancient Greek, "theōros" meaning "spectator" or "witness." That argues against your interpretation, which is, like most of your comments, irrelevant since your alleged "true original definition" is meaningless. Words, especially in English, change meaning over time and the community is which they are used.

According to the Wiktionary : THEORY

"From Middle French théorie, from Late Latin theōria, from Ancient Greek θεωρία ‎(theōría, “contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at”), from θεωρέω ‎(theōréō, “I look at, view, consider, examine”), from θεωρός ‎(theōrós, “spectator”), from θέα ‎(théa, “a view”) + ὁράω ‎(horáō, “I see,look”).

There is several different meaning depending on the context (hence the classical debate on the Theory of Evolution which is a scientific theory and not a conjecture.)

1. (sciences) A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc. [from 17th c.]
2. A hypothesis or conjecture. [from 18th c.]

NB : In scientific discourse, the sense “unproven conjecture” is discouraged (with hypothesis or conjecture preferred), due to unintentional ambiguity and intentional equivocation with the sense “well-developed statement or structure”."

Now I can see a bit of contradiction in this statement....which describes evolution as "a scientific theory and not a conjecture" but also says that it is "A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc.".....But from what I can ascertain from the literature, evolution cannot possibly be "confirmed or observed", because no human was alive to do so, and if by "experimentation" it means the speciation experiments, Then all it has is proof of adaptation within a species, not organic evolution confirming that one creature evolved into another in any kind of line of descent. So I see failure on the part of science to present any "facts" that they did not "interpret" or invent to support their theory.

What branches of science reject evolution? It can mean one of two things....either they are all correct..or all horribly mistaken. Wont it be interesting to find out which?

That is quite impossible since since does not deal in "facts," something that has been explained to you many, many, times.

Then tell the school systems to stop teaching it as fact. That is lying. If science doesn't deal in facts, then tell those science students the truth. This is what science "THINKS" "might have" happened. Its a belief, not something that can be proven.

You have been repeatedly revealed as a quote miner, and thus a liar, so your pretensions fool no one.

You are very big on put downs but a bit short on evidence. Constantly calling people a liar betrays a lack of confidence on your part. If you have to put others down to elevate yourself, you know what that means......attack means you have no defense.
It just makes you sound like an arrogant .....

-headed intellectual.

Your assumption that people are here for any reason save watching your train wreck is akin to an ant crawling up the butt of an elephant with rape on it's mind.

You do have a way with words Sapiens.....put downs as usual.....

Well, you hope its like that...but perhaps there are some who just can't swallow the fantasy that you are trying to prop up. A house of cards that has absolutely no foundation except in the fertile minds of scientists......

Birds of a feather.

I'd rather be one of these....

than one of these.....