|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/20/2005 : 17:56:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
I think the skeptics are putting more "god" into Genesis 1 than I am. (oh, the irony of it all.)
For the sake of argument, we're willing to grant the premise that God created everything and later gave Moses a vision. How is that ironic? Did you expect people to just blow off the topic because it includes an alleged deity?quote:
The Old Testament was not written for all of mankind.
Granting this premise, it still doesn't make sense that Moses would go into verse after verse of creation story which has zero practical use to the people back then, but fail to tell the story of how other people were created, people who would later be at the Jews' throats. It just appears that the priorities of what's included and what's not are all screwed up.quote:
But in the course of the writing, Moses sets an order that outlines our current understanding.
Repeating something doesn't make it true. You have failed to address important points. And now, since you've introduced the idea of the word "Earth" being local in Genesis 6-10, you'll need to defend it's global use in Genesis 1. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 19:44:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by George
Aristotle thought the Earth to be spherical. He reasoned that as earth material came together, it would most likely form a sphere. I believe many mariners in those days thought the Earth "round".
He only got away with that because there were no Christians around to kill him. (I'm so proud of my Faith, sometimes I could ... hide) |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 20:31:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Did you expect people to just blow off the topic because it includes an alleged deity?
Not at all. Everyone has been very cordial in accepting the premise of the text. It's been noticed and appreciated.
quote:
Granting this premise, it still doesn't make sense that Moses would go into verse after verse of creation story which has zero practical use to the people back then, but fail to tell the story of how other people were created, people who would later be at the Jews' throats. It just appears that the priorities of what's included and what's not are all screwed up.
"Verse after verse" implies that it's a labored writing. It's not. Put out on the pages of a Bible without commentary and it's barely a page and a half of text.
This is strictly a Jewish account. The importance of it is that a lineage is established directly from all Jews to Adam and through Adam directly to God. For the belief, it's an establishment that they themselves are the purpose of the creation. The remainder of Genesis establishes exactly that. They will be his people.
quote:
Repeating something doesn't make it true. You have failed to address important points. And now, since you've introduced the idea of the word "Earth" being local in Genesis 6-10, you'll need to defend it's global use in Genesis 1.
You keep insisting that I've "failed to address" this or that, and stated inaccuracies, but you have yet to tell me what they are. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 21:18:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
Not at all. Everyone has been very cordial in accepting the premise of the text. It's been noticed and appreciated.
Then why do you find it ironic?quote:
"Verse after verse" implies that it's a labored writing. It's not. Put out on the pages of a Bible without commentary and it's barely a page and a half of text.
Compared with precisely zero verses which describe the creation of the people Cain was afraid of, it is labored.quote:
This is strictly a Jewish account. The importance of it is that a lineage is established directly from all Jews to Adam and through Adam directly to God. For the belief, it's an establishment that they themselves are the purpose of the creation. The remainder of Genesis establishes exactly that. They will be his people.
"In the beginning, God created the Earth, Moon, Sun, stars, plants, animals, fish and birds. Then God created Adam." That takes two verses to establish. Neither the order nor the details of the creation of the planet are important to the spiritual needs of any people. If you're going to claim that Moses didn't write about things unimportant to the Jews, you're going to have to explain why there's all this useless info about "waters" and "firmament."quote:
You keep insisting that I've "failed to address" this or that, and stated inaccuracies, but you have yet to tell me what they are.
I suppose I must go back through my old posts to you, even the very last one...- Seed-bearing plants didn't exist before bountiful sunlight.
- As first formed, the Earth was entirely land, and it took time for it to cool to the point where water could condense into puddles, lakes, and oceans.
- Whales did not exist before land animals.
- ...the stars came first, no matter what, and long before the "gas and dust" of the future Earth was dense enough to block their light.
- ...do you agree that your version of Genesis 1 is self-contradictory?
- ...since you've introduced the idea of the word "Earth" being local in Genesis 6-10, you'll need to defend its global use in Genesis 1.
- Assuming that an inconsistent God is anathema to you, why then should one believe anything written anywhere in the first five books of the Bible? The author cannot be trusted to use the same word to mean the same thing twice.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 21:30:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
I am merely asking why, if there was divine revelation, does Genesis go into details which are completely unimportant to your average goatherd of a few thousand years ago, but is obviously incorrect (or at least grossly incomplete) when it comes to the creation of man? After all, the Israelites wanted to know where they came from, not where ducks came from.
Lineage is very important to JEWISH goathearders. I don't know why. But they care. How God created your oldest "daddy" mattered.
And what details of the creation/formation of the Earth are their in Genesis 1? There are 169 words that describe the entire creation of all life, (I might have missed one or two) There is no detail.
The entire process of creating Man takes four words. Not only is it incomplete, it's four words away from being non-existant.
quote:
The story as told (besides being, well, ludicrous), is inconsistent with the quality, accuracy, and completeness expected of a divine creator. This is the logical inconsistency I am asking you to address.
You're creating the logical inconsistency by expecting it to be more than it is. It's not a detailed handbook on how to create planets. It was never meant to be. What purpose would it have served to explain the physics?
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything other than if the perspective of the "witness", Moses is from within a cloud of nebulus matter, does the order of formation fit with our current understanding?
The only accomadation that needs to be made is that Moses doesn't understand that the "waters" in verses 2 and 6 are gasses.
For those who don't speak "Moses", firmament means "sky"
|
|
|
|
George
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 22:01:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
quote:
Originally posted by George
Aristotle thought the Earth to be spherical. He reasoned that as earth material came together, it would most likely form a sphere. I believe many mariners in those days thought the Earth "round".
He only got away with that because there were no Christians around to kill him. (I'm so proud of my Faith, sometimes I could ... hide)
If you're refering to the flat Earth idea, I understand Christian's aren't responsible for supporting this hardly at all.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 22:10:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything other than if the perspective of the "witness", Moses is from within a cloud of nebulus matter, does the order of formation fit with our current understanding?
Regardless of whether "waters" means "waters" or "gasses," the answer is "no." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
George
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 22:16:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
The only accomadation that needs to be made is that Moses doesn't understand that the "waters" in verses 2 and 6 are gasses.
We may have the same idea on Moses perspective and writtings. I suspect he just wrote what he saw. You might find it interesting that stellar accretion disks might have enough density and composition to create enough Rayleigh scattering to make the "cloud" look blue. Recently certain radioisotopes (found in meteorites) have revealed a nearby supernova. It is suspected blue giants might have been around early-on as well, as the incubator we came from would produce numerous neighbors. Anyway, a blue neighbor might make a proto-star's accretion disk look quite blue. The disk might easily have wave-looking areas, as well.
I am not knowledgeable enough to be certain yet on this. Much is being learned about these disks thanks to the Spitzer telescope.
This might allow more than a vision by Moses. Possibly, he saw first hand while being in God's hand. This reminds me of John in revelation where he wrote what he saw. Maybe that was a vision to, I am not sure. John even used the word vision once but maybe he couldn't tell the difference.
quote:
For those who don't speak "Moses", firmament means "sky"
But God called the firmament "Heaven". I suspect the separation of the "waters" from the firmament might have been our disk moving further from the incubator (maybe).
|
| Edited by - George on 02/20/2005 22:23:44 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 23:01:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by George
You might find it interesting that stellar accretion disks might have enough density and composition to create enough Rayleigh scattering to make the "cloud" look blue. Recently certain radioisotopes (found in meteorites) have revealed a nearby supernova. It is suspected blue giants might have been around early-on as well, as the incubator we came from would produce numerous neighbors. Anyway, a blue neighbor might make a proto-star's accretion disk look quite blue. The disk might easily have wave-looking areas, as well.
Of course, from Earth's perspective, such a disk would be seen more-or-less from the edge, and the blue line you suggest would bisect the Sun, with the Moon moving back and forth across it, twice per lunar month.
Even if the above is somehow described in Genesis, it still doesn't explain why, shortly after in the beginning - and long before the formation of any local accretion disk in the Sun's locale - Genesis doesn't mention stars. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 23:39:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Then why do you find it ironic?
It's just that people are asking why God did say more, do more... In effect, from my perspective, they're wanting a god who doesn't exist to "speak" and be more amazing.
It's not important.
It could just me having mental convulsions from the discussion.
quote:
Compared with precisely zero verses which describe the creation of the people Cain was afraid of, it is labored.
That's not labored. That's lacking.
Tell me something. Why would the Israelites care about how another race of people was created?
quote:
"In the beginning, God created the Earth, Moon, Sun, stars, plants, animals, fish and birds. Then God created Adam." That takes two verses to establish. Neither the order nor the details of the creation of the planet are important to the spiritual needs of any people. If you're going to claim that Moses didn't write about things unimportant to the Jews, you're going to have to explain why there's all this useless info about "waters" and "firmament."
How is it "useless"? It establishes their God's creation of the Earth and themselves.
quote:
Seed-bearing plants didn't exist before bountiful sunlight.
There's plenty of light for seed bearing plants to grow in diffused sunlight.
quote:
As first formed, the Earth was entirely land, and it took time for it to cool to the point where water could condense into puddles, lakes, and oceans.
It was hot rock, not land. That happens before verse 9. The cooling process itself is between verse 8 and verse 9.
quote:
Whales did not exist before land animals.
There is no mention of "whales"
(but why not? I haven't heard that before)
quote:
the stars came first, no matter what, and long before the "gas and dust" of the future Earth was dense enough to block their light.
The closer view of The Eagle Nebula shows that the dust can be dense enough to block starlight. When our Sun is formed, it's simply too bright.
quote:
do you agree that your version of Genesis 1 is self-contradictory?
No.
quote:
since you've introduced the idea of the word "Earth" being local in Genesis 6-10, you'll need to defend its global use in Genesis 1.
It's used twice in verses 1 and 2 for introdutory purposes. I don't see a misuse of the word.
quote:
Assuming that an inconsistent God is anathema to you,
Inconsistency is relative to purpose. I don't find any inconsistencies.
quote:
why then should one believe anything written anywhere in the first five books of the Bible? The author cannot be trusted to use the same word to mean the same thing twice.[/quote]
Why should I trust an author that uses a word like "anathema"
|
| Edited by - David Mc on 02/20/2005 23:59:15 |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 00:39:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by George
We may have the same idea on Moses perspective and writtings. I suspect he just wrote what he saw. You might find it interesting that stellar accretion disks might have enough density and composition to create enough Rayleigh scattering to make the "cloud" look blue. Recently certain radioisotopes (found in meteorites) have revealed a nearby supernova. It is suspected blue giants might have been around early-on as well, as the incubator we came from would produce numerous neighbors. Anyway, a blue neighbor might make a proto-star's accretion disk look quite blue. The disk might easily have wave-looking areas, as well.
I am not knowledgeable enough to be certain yet on this. Much is being learned about these disks thanks to the Spitzer telescope.
This might allow more than a vision by Moses. Possibly, he saw first hand while being in God's hand. This reminds me of John in revelation where he wrote what he saw. Maybe that was a vision to, I am not sure. John even used the word vision once but maybe he couldn't tell the difference.
So maybe that's why he called them "waters", because they looked blue? That should be something I can jump up and down to. But I'm probably a better skeptic than some folks on this board are. I don't even trust that stars are where we think they are.
Revelations has to be all visions. Way too much odd behavior in that book.
quote:
But God called the firmament "Heaven". I suspect the separation of the "waters" from the firmament might have been our disk moving further from the incubator (maybe).
Moses refers to "waters above" and "waters below". I can't think of any reference to anything moving away from the Earth. It all mimics the condensation of the cloud to me. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 03:35:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
... There is a religious phylosophy that accepts God as being "pure thought"....
(emphasis added by Dr. Mabuse)
If this is not an accidental typo, then it is one of the most brilliant puns I've seen in quite a while.
I only wish I had such a command of the English language.  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 04:04:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything other than if the perspective of the "witness", Moses is from within a cloud of nebulus matter, does the order of formation fit with our current understanding?
The planetary nebula has to become disc-shaped before the proto-planets can start to form.
That would mean that stars would be visible in the north and south, if not close to the ecliptica. By the time Earth had accumulated 90% of it's mass, more than 99% of the planetary nebula was gone, replaced by the Sun and the planets and the snowballs that becomes comets in the vicinity of the Sun. And that's while the earth was still inhospitable to ANY form of life. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 06:03:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So maybe that's why he called them "waters", because they looked blue? That should be something I can jump up and down to. But I'm probably a better skeptic than some folks on this board are. I don't even trust that stars are where we think they are.
Revelations has to be all visions. Way too much odd behavior in that book.
Mayhaps, they are not.
quote:
Refraction effect may be distorting astronomers' results.
The galaxy Centaurus A has a supermassive black hole at its heart #8722; but could its gravity be fooling astronomers?
© NASA/JPL-Caltech
Astronomers could be misinterpreting their observations of distant stars, suggest mathematicians.
Starlight may be bent in odd directions when it passes close to a rotating black hole, the researchers say, unexpectedly shifting its source's apparent position in the sky. The cause is a recently discovered phenomenon called negative refraction, which physicists are still struggling to understand.
Astronomers already adjust their observations to account for the fact that light is bent by massive objects such as black holes, an effect called gravitational lensing. But Akhlesh Lakhtakia, a mathematician at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, has studied what happens when a black hole rotates. In this case, light is bent in the direction opposite to that predicted by conventional theory.
Interesting, no?
And as for Revelation, let us not forget that it was written in the land of hashish and the opium poppy.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
George
New Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 10:06:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by George
You might find it interesting that stellar accretion disks might have enough density and composition to create enough Rayleigh scattering to make the "cloud" look blue. Recently certain radioisotopes (found in meteorites) have revealed a nearby supernova. It is suspected blue giants might have been around early-on as well, as the incubator we came from would produce numerous neighbors. Anyway, a blue neighbor might make a proto-star's accretion disk look quite blue. The disk might easily have wave-looking areas, as well.
Of course, from Earth's perspective, such a disk would be seen more-or-less from the edge, and the blue line you suggest would bisect the Sun, with the Moon moving back and forth across it, twice per lunar month.
The Geneisis observer's description indicates to me he would be observing from a good distance above the disk. The "Earth" as seen "without form and void" might be a darkened hole in the accretion disk due to the gravity well of Earth during it's formation. A light source oblique to the disk might allow this darkened void. I would love to see some planetary accretion disks with "void" looking holes in the stellar disk. Unfortunately, computer modeling, I think, has gotten more away from this type of planetary formation. [Yet, there is still the issue of the need to explain planetary rotation rates.]
An oblique perspective by the observer would enhance the view of the blue scattering. Here is a recent view from Cassini showing a beautiful blue Saturn sky.... here . Notice the position of the terminator on Mimas showing us we are seeing scattering from an oblique-angled sun. (another BABB moment  )
My hope is to discover at least one perspective can make it to the level of "plausible" (as no proof is likely).
The Moon formed after the Earth was formed due to an impact. This is the current mainstream view. It may not have been around at the time of the proposed observeration.
quote:
Even if the above is somehow described in Genesis, it still doesn't explain why, shortly after in the beginning - and long before the formation of any local accretion disk in the Sun's locale - Genesis doesn't mention stars.
It may be "plausible" to assume the Sun was not nuclear and covered in dust at the time. A star, or stars, located behind the observer with dark space beyond the disk would be one scenario, IMO.
Granted, this is somewhat imaginative but it may still have merit. At least it's worth kick'n around a little.
Star births in molecular clouds are numerous. We know much more than we used to, thanks to the Hubble and others. Spitzer should provide a much better knowledge base to work with as it is designed for the red and IR end of the spectrum. Great for clouds.
|
| Edited by - George on 02/21/2005 13:54:55 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
