|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2010 : 08:18:43 [Permalink]
|
For those who are still interested, I've posted again. Here is what I said, basically.
======
Originally posted on Vox's site:
Even if the water didn't have to cover the entire earth, that verse clearly implies liquid water of at least some amount.
Correct. And the evidence shows that the Earth had surface
water very very early on. So that verse is correct also. Now we get to the third time I have had to correct your astrophysical misconception,only to have you blithely ignore it: |
Baloney on your part. Read on, I'm not the one "blithely ignoring" anything. I know how the solar system formed, just read any astronomy book. I'm pointing out how much you're need to stretch out that one "day", from the nebula to the earth's formation to surface water development in order to have the hebrew account become "correct".
On that so-called "first day" of "creation" in Genesis 1:2 where Stoner is talking about shapless nebula in dark space with the spirit of God hovering over the waters, there would be no way for liquid water to really be anywhere on any surface, since there wasn't one yet.
And as I have pointed out twice before, the entire early solar system was a relatively dense, dark nebula. |
Yes, as was the earth also! You and Stoner are moving way beyond this "first day" in order to have an already solid earth that has surface water! Problem is, this is all described in that so-called "first day" of creation.
Ah, but you have a "solution" to the long stretch of time needed for that, don't you?
| ...and given the length of the first "day" in Genesis the time between that and the surface water is still significant. |
Ah, now here's what you use: the length of that "day". How nice it must be to be able to be so bloody flexible with that, eh? You can stretch all sorts of things into a "day" if you make it long enough...like for instance, the formation of the earth from the gas and dust that the solar system formed from, and even the development of water on that earth, all in one tiny verse, within one "day". Just so that the science and the hebrew written will now "match".
| Moreover, from the perspective of an observer hovering over the surface of the Earth (which is what Genesis is explicitly specifiying)... |
Except that it was still a nebula at that time when it was "without form and void".
| ...it certainly would have been dark because the atmosphere and interplanetary nebula would still have been very thick by the time surface water was plentiful early in the Hadean era. Also, since you evidently have trouble with even the English: it was the Earth that was formless early on (not a 'shapeless nebula in dark space'), |
Let's see: if the earth was already solidified enough to have surface water, it wouldn't have been "formless" now, would it?
Now, what did your friend Stoner say?
| The matter from which God formed our earth and solar system comprised a shapeless nebula in dark space |
What does that mean? If the "matter from which 'god' formed the earth" was made up of a shapeless nebula in dark space, it meant that the earth was itself part of that 'shapeless nebula in dark space'! How can a "shapeless nebula" itself have surface water? As even you admit, it was the solidified earth that had the water, not the "nebula" that is in Stoner's Genesis 1:2.
Stoner explictly addresses the first point, namely that the earliest plant fossils simply haven't been found yet; which a moment's reflection from someone who understands the fossil evidence, is not an unwarranted assumption. Also your earlier link regarding spores is closer to making that point: as time goes on earlier and earlier samples keep turning up, 425, 450, now 490MYA for the earliest plant fossils.
|
What you need though, are for those plant fossils to show up before those animals that I mentioned in my previous post. I had mentioned there that the fossils indicated that those plant's ancestors likely came from the Cambrian, (meaning that'd be likely when they or their precursors first appeared). Problem: There were already animals around by then.
Then there's the apparent fact that those verses in genesis do seem to refer to seed-bearing plants and grass. That seems to be what "Veyomar elohim tadshe haaretz deshe eshev mazriah zera etz peri ose pri lemino asher zaro bo." keeps getting translated to anyway.
On the second point, regarding flying critters before land creatures. Going to the Hebrew (or reading Stoner in-full) would show why the English is insufficient.
The "land creatures" that are refered to are in the Hebrew "remes"/"ramas" and "behemah": The former are "reptiles" and the latter are "large quadrupeds".
So you're claiming that insects/flying insects did not predate reptiles and quadrupeds? This is what Stoner, the Genesis account and scientific evidence says. So where does that leave your objection? |
Let's see: The Hebrew word remes is a noun derived from the word: "to crawl", right? Those animals I listed in my earlier post can all crawl, obviously. So, according to the Hebrew word, the land animals did arrive before the "flying things" after all.
Isn't the correct translation of remes actually "invertebrate", (or at least an animal with no backbone)? According to these guys, anyway: Avraham Even-Shoshan and Hamilon Haivri Hamerukaz, ("The Abridged Hebrew Dictionary") (Jerusalem: Kriyat Sefer publishers, 1974).
The The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon.(Brown, et al., 1979, pp. 942b-943a) says that the word "remes" gives the idea of anything that has the motion of creeping, crawling, etc.
My objection looks fine so far.
So, are you going to make fun of libraries as well as goole now? |
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 08/05/2010 08:22:05 |
 |
|
Vox Day: Science vs. Religion
