Gen.1:14(NAS) Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
The stars were made in the expanse, the fourth day.
This has been discussed many times before.....the opening verse of Genesis says that God created the whole universe in one mighty act of creation. That includes the earth and the "heavens"...is the sun part of the heavens? The "lights" (sun, moon and stars) were apparently not fully visible until the the 4th day...
Job tells us that there were thick "swaddling bands" of clouds in the early part of creation. (Job 38:9) Clearing away those clouds would have revealed all the heavenly bodies.
Consider Workbook B
What are the possible conclusions I can arrive at?
For me, I could either conclude that someone, or something caused these effects, but with purpose, and deliberately. As far as I know, for something to be done deliberately, and with purpose, requires forethought, and this can only be done with a mind - intelligence.
I don't know of any other possible way. Do you?
There isn't by human terms. How do you connect that with life? We don't just believe there is an artist. No faith. Just knowledge. Also, a person who probably come to an inner conclusion is probably one who loves art. My friend doesn't and I look at her in awe.
But I'm not finding a connection with nature, the earth, etc. Everything happens spontaneously to nature. We see pattern in it but things like seizures and cancers are part of life too. Things are random.
How do you see god in nature as you see an artist to his art? The latter, without the signature, we draw our own conclusions that the art has an artist. But then you can also look in the clouds and see an airplane. The art is highly depended on us. But I see what you saying.
I just don't see the same analogy with creation. I appreciate nature and live within it since I was a kid. I never had a thought someone created nature. The origin wasn't something I thought of.
I put more emphasis on the present and what's in front of me now. I tried looking up my genealogy when my grandmother passed away. After awhile, I gave up. Many people look for origin. I figure all what I have done in my childhood, my experiences, my passions, etc all make up who I am today. I don't know my family member Joe Some in the 19th century. I can read about him. Even pick out how he contributed to our family history. But that's about it.
I can look at nature. Entertain the idea there is a creation of origin but at the end, I just appreciate whats I know and experience and who I know at the moment.
With the artist to his art, I don't know how to compare. I mean, think of it. I can't even meet Michaelangelo but I know he existed. I can't meet a creator, get to know him personally and even form opinions about his character because I have nothing to go on. I see a tree growing but where is the signature? I can assume or entertain the idea since we are an origin-focused society. On the other hand, it only goes but that far like my genealogy.
My second question is if god is the creator and his art is a reflection of himself, without a signature and without the believer entertaining the idea of creator to his creation, and without people in the past using their assumptions we take up as true in the present, without these resources does nature speak for itself?
If we had no concept of an artist, how does the art speak for itself?
There isn't by human terms. How do you connect that with life? We don't just believe there is an artist. No faith. Just knowledge. Also, a person who probably come to an inner conclusion is probably one who loves art. My friend doesn't and I look at her in awe.
But I'm not finding a connection with nature, the earth, etc. Everything happens spontaneously to nature. We see pattern in it but things like seizures and cancers are part of life too. Things are random.
How do you see god in nature as you see an artist to his art? The latter, without the signature, we draw our own conclusions that the art has an artist. But then you can also look in the clouds and see an airplane. The art is highly depended on us. But I see what you saying.
I just don't see the same analogy with creation. I appreciate nature and live within it since I was a kid. I never had a thought someone created nature. The origin wasn't something I thought of.
I put more emphasis on the present and what's in front of me now. I tried looking up my genealogy when my grandmother passed away. After awhile, I gave up. Many people look for origin. I figure all what I have done in my childhood, my experiences, my passions, etc all make up who I am today. I don't know my family member Joe Some in the 19th century. I can read about him. Even pick out how he contributed to our family history. But that's about it.
I can look at nature. Entertain the idea there is a creation of origin but at the end, I just appreciate whats I know and experience and who I know at the moment.
With the artist to his art, I don't know how to compare. I mean, think of it. I can't even meet Michaelangelo but I know he existed. I can't meet a creator, get to know him personally and even form opinions about his character because I have nothing to go on. I see a tree growing but where is the signature? I can assume or entertain the idea since we are an origin-focused society. On the other hand, it only goes but that far like my genealogy.
My second question is if god is the creator and his art is a reflection of himself, without a signature and without the believer entertaining the idea of creator to his creation, and without people in the past using their assumptions we take up as true in the present, without these resources does nature speak for itself?
If we had no concept of an artist, how does the art speak for itself?
No...as I said, context determines it, not what 'suits my purpose '.
In fact, there are a few things I know the Bible teaches that doesn't 'suit my purpose' or what I'd like to be true, but I know the Bible teaches it....like the condition of the dead, for one.
It can't really be about context, can it. The same context is there for everyone. So what you should actually be saying is that it is based on your interpretation of the context. Your interpretation of context is different from other people's interpretation of context.
It's a very long article, but I did read through it. There were a few things that I thought I was familiar with. One was The Case of the Smashed Conifers. I'm not sure but I seem to recall seeing something that indicated that these were the result of a tsunami.
I read further and came across:
Back to the United States - The Columbia Plateau ... The Scablands It concerns the so-called scablands of the Pacific Northwest. Few people are aware of this area's uniqueness. ...Even more shocking is the following: "Many of the gravel bars bear giant ripples on their surface - asymmetric wavelike undulations up to 20 feet high and 300 feet from crest to crest" ... At present little is known about the relationship of ripple amplitude and wavelength of ripples to velocity of generating current. ...,It was admitted that the current must have been "enormous."
Catastrophic Flooding Only Answer Shelton summarizes on a catastrophic note. "The sheer magnitude of the whole scabland complex and the many ways in which it EXCEEDS the bounds of normal stream action erosion and deposition seem to justify, if indeed they do not DEMAND, an outside agent operating under extraordinary conditions"
He goes on to conclude that it is "The Proof of Worldwide Catastrophe"
I am familiar with the scablands issue. Before linking to an article citing the scablands as "proof" for the Genesis flood, you should have been familiar with it too. Your pro-Genesis-flood author definitely should have been aware of Harlan Bretz and the story of the scablands. This has been settled science for over a half century.
Perhaps he was aware of it and just decided to ignore the facts and put his own Creo spin on things.
Where, in the bible, does it say the universe and the earth are old? Also, what does old mean? Tens of thousands, Billions?
If "there is Nothing in Genesis saying just how old each of the creative days", and Noah's days, then are you just guessing?
It does Not have to say how old, but to me common-sense reasoning on Scripture lets us know it is old.
By my saying Noah's day we understand that to mean more than a 24-hr. day.
Just as grandfather's day was more than a short period of time.
So, it is easy to understand that the creative days were Not 24-hr. days.
We don't even know if each of the creative days were of the same length of time or differing lengths of time.
We do know as per Hebrews 4:4-11 that God's 7th day was still on-going in the 1st century.
So, there is No way The 7th day was a 24-hr. day and No reason to think the creative days were 24-hr. days.
How do you see god in nature as you see an artist to his art? The latter, without the signature, we draw our own conclusions that the art has an artist. But then you can also look in the clouds and see an airplane. The art is highly depended on us. But I see what you saying.
I just don't see the same analogy with creation. I appreciate nature and live within it since I was a kid. I never had a thought someone created nature. The origin wasn't something I thought of.
-
The art is highly depended on us. What you see in creation from the creator, I don't see that. We can talk about art and artist all day long but I don't see a creator. Never had.
The most basic of this question is when you see a beautiful mountain, can that mountain show me the creator or is it something you perceive like a clouds to shape even though there is no plane there?
I read through the post, but seeing that we went through that already, and I thought we both understood each other, I decided to isolate that point, to give you an opportunity to clarify your point.
So since we agree that one can't look in the clouds and see an airplane, as you put it, you either have to consciously see - try to see different shaped objects in the clouds, or subconsciously see, I am hoping you would restate your point, if you don't mind.
Gen.1:14(NAS) Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
The stars were made in the expanse, the fourth day.
I find the stars were ' created ' before the 4th day. On the 4th day they were ' made ' to do something.
It seems to me you are stressing the word ' made ' instead of the word ' created '.
There is a difference in definition because we who already exist can be 'made' to do something.
Like a parent with a child. That existing child can be ' made ' to sit in a chair, etc.
I find God ' made ' the already created sun, moon and stars do something.
Please notice the job that God gave then to do in verse 17.
They were now ' made ' to give their existing light to reach the surface of the Earth.
So, the light from the already created starry heavens would now be 'made' to reach earth's surface.
How do you see god in nature as you see an artist to his art? The latter, without the signature, we draw our own conclusions that the art has an artist. But then you can also look in the clouds and see an airplane. The art is highly depended on us. But I see what you saying.
I just don't see the same analogy with creation. I appreciate nature and live within it since I was a kid. I never had a thought someone created nature. The origin wasn't something I thought of.
-
The art is highly depended on us. What you see in creation from the creator, I don't see that. We can talk about art and artist all day long but I don't see a creator. Never had.
The most basic of this question is when you see a beautiful mountain, can that mountain show me the creator or is it something you perceive like a clouds to shape even though there is no plane there?
You did mention that this post was long, so maybe you might have missed where I answered your questions. Perhaps you can just back up and look at it again, and see if the same question is not there.
Remember, you did admit that your posts are long, and I do take time to read them. Please, have another look.
I read through the post, but seeing that we went through that already, and I thought we both understood each other, I decided to isolate that point, to give you an opportunity to clarify your point.
So since we agree that one can't look in the clouds and see an airplane, as you put it, you either have to consciously see - try to see different shaped objects in the clouds, or subconsciously see, I am hoping you would restate your point, if you don't mind.
We know each other's stance but I don't understand it personally. I understand why you see an artist to his art. I don't understand how it the concept, I get.
Like. I understand when you say "the painting is beautiful." Meaning you appreciate what the painting means.
If I don't see the same beauty understanding the concept is fine, but where is the beauty to which Im missing? Feels like a missing link.
I have no faith in the Big Bang, What I believe is based on evidence - red shifting, the cosmic microwave background, and the elemental composition of pristine nebulae.
The evidence doesn't suggest that there is a divine being. One must begin withe that premise before examining the evidence, then massage it so that it seems to support the premise.
A the fact is the moving of planets outward, and whatever else you might come up with, and I agree with this. However, the faith part is how it started, since there is no proof that it came about simultaneously without a divine power being present to cause the blast of energy and the moving outward of planets.
And, the same could be said for the Big Bang. Forget about the Big Bang for a moment. If you looked at a house, how do you assume it came about? Would you assume it just appeared out of nowhere, or someone made it? Now, have a look at the universe, which is so much more complicated than a simple house.
[/QUOTE]
The reason to an atheist has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that the atheist sees no evidence that suggests that gods exist. Also, a critical thinker doesn't choose what he believes. He is compelled to believe what he based on evidence. If it supports belief, he believes. If it doesn't, he does't believe.
So you basically don’t have any? Why do you believe? That’s all I would like to know. I could spend days laying out the bible’s proof, but that would get nowhere.
“1) The Earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep.
a. Notice that the Earth already existed.
b. There was a 'deep'. In the original, it was certainly interpreted as water, but we can allow an interpretation as 'space'. In any case, space and the Earth already exist.”
Have a look at the very first scripture of the bible.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.” -Genesis 1:1
It says here that there was nothing and then God created it with an immense explosion of energy. Starting to sound very familiar with a certain scientific theory we have been discussing...
That scripture is Genisis 1:2, and is after Genisis 1:1. God made the Earth, and then it is described what they were like. So, I do not see how this proves that the bible claims the Earth was always there at all.
“2) Light.
a. This is out of order. Light would have existed LONG before the Earth. The Earth is only 4.5 billion years old, while the universe is about 13.7 billion years. There were stars long before the Earth and they would have emitted light.”
Yes, I agree, it did exist before the Earth was made. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth”. Heavens including all the celestial bodies, as in stars.
In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew word “Heb·raʼ” was used, meaning to create. However, on the fourth creative ‘day’, the word “a·sahʹ” was used, meaning to make, prepare, or establish.
The scripture therefore Is saying “what the already existing sun, moon, and stars now became in relation to planet Earth. On the first “day” light (Heb., ʼohr) evidently gradually penetrated the cloud layers still enveloping the earth and would have become visible to an earthly observer, had he been present. (Ge 1:3) On the fourth “day” things changed. The statement that “God put them in the expanse of the heavens” on that day expresses the fact that God caused the sources of light (Heb., ma·ʼohrʹ), namely, the sun, moon, and stars, to become discernible in the expanse. Their purpose was to “make a division between the day and the night” and to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” “ - JW Watchtower Online Library
3) God divided the light from the darkness. Darkness was called Night and light was called Day. This is the first day.
a. This regards darkness as a substance separate from the substance of light. This is wrong.
b. Night and Day happen because of the rotation of the Earth with respect to the sun. But the sun isn't formed until later. This is out of order.
If you take into account what I said just above this, then the Sun has already been formed. There was, according to the bible, a thick barrier of cloud so that prevented light from reaching earth at the start, then God started to “separate” light from dark when the clouds started to disperse, “causing” light. However, the Sun was not yet visible.
4) God divided the waters by a firmament, calling the firmament 'heaven'. This is the second day.
a. This makes clear that the 'deep' is actually made of water.
b. No firmament has ever been discovered. So this isn't even in the *actual* order.
c. Your quote mistakes this for the formation of an atmosphere, which is clearly wrong.
“6 Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse heaven.”
So the Earth has been covered between a dense layer of water vapour, and this scripture is saying to divide them (one in the sky and one as the sea) and create a gap inbetween. Rather than the atmosphere, we believe this was the canopy of water that poured down during Noah’s time, the flood.
Henry M. Morris, observes: “The region above about 80 miles is very hot, over 100° F and possibly rising to 3000° F, and is in fact called the thermosphere for this reason. High temperature, of course, is the chief requisite for retaining a large quantity of water vapor. Furthermore, it is known that water vapor is substantially lighter than air and most of the other gases making up the atmosphere. There is thus nothing physically impossible about the concept of a vast thermal vapor blanket once existing in the upper atmosphere.”
Various science/nature/history documentaries state that there must have been a mass surge of water that ran which created massive valleys and more besides. However, they either say this was from the ice age or they simply do not know.
5) Dry land, grass, seeded plants, fruit trees.
a. Seeded plants existed LONG before flowering plants (and fruit trees are flowering plants)
b. Grass was even later than flowering plants (since grass is, technically a flowering plant).
c. There would have been sea creatures LONG before land plants.
11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. -Genesis 1:11
I don’t know much about the order in which things were made, but to me this scripture looks like a list rather than a order. At the shop, buy milk, jam, and eggs. Do you have to buy them in that order? Maybe it is easier to get jam first, since it is closer.
6) Formation of the Sun and Moon
a. The sun would have actually preceded the Earth. This is badly out of order.
b. The Moon would have formed before land plants. This is also badly out of order.
c. The sun is required for Day and Night. Again, badly out of order.
a) I talked about this above.
b) Again, as above. They both were formed before the Earth, something we actually agree on here.
c) As above. Some sunlight can shine through the thick barrier of clouds that was present when the Earth was in “total darkness” since it started to clear, however the Sun and Moon were not yet visible.
7) Whales, other sea creatures, and winged fowl.
a. In actuality, birds (winged fowl) existed before grass. Again, out of order.
b. There would have been sea creatures in the oceans before land plants.
c. Whales evolved from land animals. Again, way out of order.
d. The first whales evolved long after birds.
We do not believe in evolution, nor see any proof of it whatsoever. It is not scientific fact, merely a theory. Therefore, these points don’t apply.
(Also, just a totally curious question, how can birds exist before grass? Don’t they need to eat animals which feed of grass, or eat the seeds of grass themselves, or use straw for nests? Thx)
8) Land animals. Specifically cattle and those that 'creepeth' on the Earth.
a. There were land animals way before there were flowering plants or grass. Out of order.
b. Modern cattle came after humans (although other bovines existed before, so this is ambiguous)
I don’t get how animals can come before their food source exist.
9) Humans.
Well, I guess this is mostly right.
Hmm, well if the bible didn’t, we wouldn’t be having this conversation since we never would have existed...
However, the faith part is how it started, since there is no proof that it came about simultaneously without a divine power being present to cause the blast of energy and the moving outward of planets.
What an odd way of thinking. By this line of reasoning, everything is "faith".
Your car stops running and the gas gauge reads "E"? It's mere faith that you've run out of gas, since there's no proof that God didn't just stop your car and move your gas gauge.
You flip the light switch and the light comes on? It's mere faith that you flipping the switch had anything to do with the light coming on, since there's no proof that it wasn't God that made the light come on.
Basically what you're advocating is that unless there's absolute "proof" of God not magically manipulating things, then concluding that things are they way they seem is just "faith". That must make it rather difficult to get through daily life. Of course I suspect this is all just an argument you're employing out of convenience at this point in time, rather than a mindset you actually put in to practice.
When have I ever used something that had not been designed by someone? I have used a rock to pound a stake into the ground. I have used a vine as a ladder to climb a tree.
You take for granted that there is water in the stream to begin with. Where did it come from? How does the water cycle just happen to exist? Every drop of water on planet earth is recycled within our atmosphere. Water covers most of our planet, yet it is undrinkable for the majority of land dwellers. The fact that a system exists to take moisture from the oceans, store it in clouds and drop it over land to provide vital water for all of us who live here....Is that just another fortunate fluke?
I can use snow to ski on without having to make the snow.
What is snow? How do ice crystals form? Do snowflakes have to be beautiful and so incredibly diverse in form? No one knew how amazing they were until humans discovered how to photograph them. Can you ski on snow without using something designed by humans to facilitate it? Did skis and snowboards just evolve with no intelligence directing their design?
Can complex information just appear out of nowhere? Or is complex information the product of intelligence? Can it be divulged to others without a means to communicate it, along with the means to understand it?
This word "natural" covers up a whole lot of 'improbability' IMO.
What does "natural" really mean?
Man formulated the laws. They are descriptive, and not proscriptive. There is a difference. It is the processes that govern nature, not the laws that describe the processes. If we had never formulated the laws, the processes would still be at work.
"Processes that govern nature" were always there.....the Creator put them all in place so that "nature" would take care of itself. Humans identified them and then virtually took credit for the intelligence need to understand them. But that was something the Creator provided as well. The human brain....more amazing and incredibly well designed than any man made computer....I cannot see how it could possibly be the product of "natural" undirected forces.
Your computer analogy is just a repackaging of the Watchmaker argument. We know computers do not occur due to natural processes by comparing them to things that do occur naturally, plus we know that humans design and build computers......We have direct evidence of that. We can even watch the computer being assembled. A computer is the assembly of various naturally occurring substances into a usable product by humans.
But doesn't it highlight that all components must be individually designed and made according to a pre-determined design. Doesn't it also demonstrate that 'assembly' requires precise placement of each component in the overall design for it to be beneficial? How many complex integrated systems do you know of that required no designer and the precise placement of its components? This is just basic common sense IMO.
Granted, there are many things that seem improbable in the process of a universe forming, right through to life existing within it. But improbable things occur all the time. Plus we have no idea how many universes exist, or how many times one has formed, or reformed. Ditto for life. We don't know how many billions, or tens of billion times, or tens of trillion times the various chemicals interacted before the precursors of life first formed. So we have no way to determine the probability of any of those things. Any attempt to determine the probability of something for which we do not have the data to examine is just wild speculation
How many "improbable" things coming together, supposedly 'undirected' makes a person deny the need for intelligent co-ordination of the processes? Why do people fight the idea of an intelligent designer? Is it a pride thing? I understand the need to fight YEC (which I consider to be unintelligent)..... but the existence of an Intelligent Designer is not YEC.....to us, it is something completely different, not denying science but showing how the Creator of science did what he did in an intelligent way. It seems to me that denial on this level is science's own version of YEC. It also defies logic.
It can't really be about context, can it. The same context is there for everyone. So what you should actually be saying is that it is based on your interpretation of the context. Your interpretation of context is different from other people's interpretation of context.
It's a very long article, but I did read through it. There were a few things that I thought I was familiar with. One was The Case of the Smashed Conifers. I'm not sure but I seem to recall seeing something that indicated that these were the result of a tsunami.
I read further and came across:
Back to the United States - The Columbia Plateau ... The Scablands It concerns the so-called scablands of the Pacific Northwest. Few people are aware of this area's uniqueness. ...Even more shocking is the following: "Many of the gravel bars bear giant ripples on their surface - asymmetric wavelike undulations up to 20 feet high and 300 feet from crest to crest" ... At present little is known about the relationship of ripple amplitude and wavelength of ripples to velocity of generating current. ...,It was admitted that the current must have been "enormous."
Catastrophic Flooding Only Answer Shelton summarizes on a catastrophic note. "The sheer magnitude of the whole scabland complex and the many ways in which it EXCEEDS the bounds of normal stream action erosion and deposition seem to justify, if indeed they do not DEMAND, an outside agent operating under extraordinary conditions"
He goes on to conclude that it is "The Proof of Worldwide Catastrophe"
I am familiar with the scablands issue. Before linking to an article citing the scablands as "proof" for the Genesis flood, you should have been familiar with it too. Your pro-Genesis-flood author definitely should have been aware of Harlan Bretz and the story of the scablands. This has been settled science for over a half century.
Perhaps he was aware of it and just decided to ignore the facts and put his own Creo spin on things.
I find the stars were ' created ' before the 4th day. On the 4th day they were ' made ' to do something.
It seems to me you are stressing the word ' made ' instead of the word ' created '.
There is a difference in definition because we who already exist can be 'made' to do something.
Like a parent with a child. That existing child can be ' made ' to sit in a chair, etc.
I find God ' made ' the already created sun, moon and stars do something.
Please notice the job that God gave then to do in verse 17.
They were now ' made ' to give their existing light to reach the surface of the Earth.
So, the light from the already created starry heavens would now be 'made' to reach earth's surface.
Gen.1:14(NAS) Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
The two lights God made were the sun and the moon. Why do you think the stars were made before the fourth day? God just said he made them the fourth day! It doesn't get any clearer than this.
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.(2Cor.5:17).
It also defies logic.