Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 957
Topic: Genesis Proof Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 17:14
Originally posted by Murph
i'm a church-going Catholic but not a theology expert, but maybe i can answer. Jesus saved the souls of all of mankind, so maybe God changed his attitude towards us after Jesus. and, technically, i don't know if he even became all-loving then, it might be a more recent change. throughout the dark ages and through the Reformation, God was still seen as somethign to be feared, not exactly loved. people seemed to go to church out of fear of being smited and damned.
so, God got nicer after Jesus, people just didn't realize this until recently
While your answer may work for a laymen answer, it doesn't work well in the orthodox, serious Theology. God doesn't change. He already has everything He is to do in mind. But according to his plan, the fullness of grace is to be poured out through the New Covenant, thus this explains the "delaying of grace." However, God is always equally just and merciful at all times. The Old Covenant is a preparatory time, when the fullness of the New Covenant is hidden in signs.
(Keep in mind that I'm no longer a believing Catholic, and only a partially practicing one. I studied Catholic Theology for about five years, though, so I can answer technical questions.)
Edited by MengTzu
(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 957
Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 17:14
Alkiviades wrote:
The New Testament is the life of Jesus and all and it should be the holy book of the christianity. But what is the Old Testament doing in the Bible? I mean. it's the creation story or a specific ethnic ground and religious text of the same ethnic group. By any means, it should not be there. Why, then, is it? Doesn't it confuse you btw? Who's God? The loving, caring, forgiving one of the New Testament, or the vengeful, wrathful, ruthless of the OT?
I'm surprised you haven't heard a coherent answer. It is an essential part of Christianity: Jesus brought about a New Covenant, which fulfills the Old. The Old is there as God's plan to anticipate and prepare for the New, so that when Jesus incarnated, the stage is set ready for him so to speak. God wants to reveal the truth incrementally through mysteries, prefigurations, and signs. The fullness of the New Covenant is hiddened through signs in the Old Testament until it is revealed.
However, if you smell something fish about the apparent contradictions between the Old Testament and the New Testament, you're probably right -- the incongruence between the Old Testament and the New Testament is one reason I left Christianity for intellectual reasons. Sometimes it almost feels like the Christians forcefully merged two sets of books together, whilst these two sets contain many contradictory things.
Edited by MengTzu
(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)
When you are literally made out of words...literally...it's eternally critical
that the words you live your life by are the correct ones. (For more information
on this phenomenal secret click on to "Made Out of Words" on this
site.) Over and over again this web site, www.godsaidmansaid.com, proves the
veracity of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. Every Thursday (God
willing) we air a brand new subject that proves that God is and that His word
is true.
Psalm 119, Verse 105:
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
His word is the light of life. It never changes and is always correct. Build
your "house" upon it. God's word is the solid rock.
GOD SAID that He created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. When
you track the genealogical record in God's Word you will discover that the earth
is just over 6,000 years old.
MAN SAID, "That's absurd! Every intelligent human knows that the earth
is billions of years old. That's just another reason to discard that archaic
Bible."
Now THE RECORD. You have probably sat in a school classroom and heard or someone
has said to you that the world is billions of years old or that bones have been
discovered that are millions of years old. The next opportunity you have in
such a setting ask the individual to prove it. If you find someone who attempts
to prove their old age position, they will typically march out flawed circular
reasoning or dating systems built up upon unprovable assumptions. The results
of their dating systems have been proven wrong numerous times. The reason the
anti-God group has never proven its position is quite simple and that is that
their position simply isn't true. Keep in mind that proof is established by
two or more reliable witnesses. Where are their witnesses? Recorded history
goes back approximately 5,000 years and comes to an abrupt halt and the reason
for that is obvious...there isn't much history prior to that point.
Because the evolutionists have no recorded history of man prior to the 6,000
plus years declared in God's Word which is a reliable history book and witness,
the anti-Bible groups have no witnesses to support their pre-6,000 years old
claims. In order to debunk the authority of God's Word they created an armada
of pseudoscientific theories and techniques designed to offset their lack of
witnesses...their lack of proof.
I mentioned earlier flawed circular reasoning. For example, if you asked the
evolutionists to date a particular fossil they would certify its age by telling
you what strata it was found in. And if you pursued and asked how you can tell
the age of particular strata they would tell you by the age of the fossil found
in it. That kind of sounds like the dog chasing its tail, doesn't it?
I also mentioned erroneous dating techniques. Carbon-14 which is a dating technique
used to date once living things is probably the dating system with the most
notoriety. After a living thing dies it begins to decay and Carbon-14 decays
back to Nitrogen-14. By measuring the levels of Carbon-14 left in the dead specimen
a scientist estimates its age. The carbon-14 process has proven far from perfect.
On numerous occasions Carbon-14 measurements have shown living things to be
of ancient ages as well as attaching ages to dead things, of which their ages
have been certified, far older than they actually are. Regarding radiocarbon
dating, Dr. G. E. Aardsma, Chairman of the Astro/Geophysics Dept. of the ICR
Graduate School, had this to say:
At the present time it appears that the conventional radiocarbon dating technique
is on relatively firm ground for dates which fall within the past 3,000 years.
In spite of this 3,000 year limit, anti-creationists have thrown out ages of
70,000 years and more as a result of radiocarbon dating.
Most, due to lack of real interest, are unaware there is a mountain of information
to support a 6,000 year old earth. There are 107 scientific measurements alone
that prove the earth to be young; scientific research concerning things such
as population statistics and the fossil record to Helium in the atmosphere to
erosion of the continents.
Perplexing news concerning recent dinosaur bones unearthed in Alaska should
have sent a lot of the old-earth proponents back to their bunkers to attempt
to sure up their theories. According to the anti-Bible folks there was a huge
catastrophe that killed off all the dinosaurs around 70 million years ago. M.
Helder in a 1992 article titled, "Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found," published
in Creation ex nihilo, Vol. 14, the following information was found:
She could not accept that fresh (not permineralized, meaning unfossilized)
dinosaur bones had been found in Alaska. Such bones could never have lasted
70 million years, she said. Unlikely or not, it is a fact that such bones
have been found...How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for
70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were
not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions
was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived...Why then did these
bones not decay long ago?...The obvious conclusion is that these bones were
deposited in relatively recent times.
Scientists at the University of Montana were shocked when they found T. rex
bones that were not totally fossilized. Not only were the bones not fossilized
but they appeared to have blood cells which would be impossible if they were
millions of years old. The following is part of the report issued by the scientists:
A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope...the
lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside
the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent
red with a dark center...red blood cells? The shape and location suggested
them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn't possibly have stayed preserved
in the 65-million-year old tyrannosaur.
The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete
specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990...When the team brought the
dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone
of the leg had not completely fossilzed...So far, we think that all of this
evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved
heme as hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are
confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood
compounds left in its tissues."
In another effort to make fossils speak in new ways, post-graduate student
Mary Schweitzer has been trying to extract DNA from the bones of T. rex. Originally,
like Kristi, she had intended to thin-section the bones and conduct a histologic
investigation. But under the microscope there appeared to be blood cells preserved
within the bone tissue. Mary conducted a number of tests in an attempt to
rule out the possibility that what she'd discovered were in fact blood cells.
The tests instead confirmed her initial interpretation.
Author, popular lecturer and broadcaster Ken Ham weighed in with the following
comment on this subject:
These red blood cells provide excellent evidence that these fossils are not
millions of years old, but are no more than a few thousand years old.
Ancient historic accounts, the Bible and thousands of local sightings testify
of dinosaurs and fiery flying serpents in recorded history. Even in this present
day reports of dinosaur-like creatures exist. For example, in the publication
Science Digest, 1981, and in Science Frontiers, number 3367, they
recorded that explorers and native Africans reported sightings of dinosaur-like
creatures. In the February 6, 1980, issue of the Australian Melbourne Sun
it was reported that over recent years 40 people claimed to have seen plesiosaurs
off the Victorian coast of Australia.
For more exciting information about dinosaurs, click on to "Dinosaurs"
on this web site.
The earth's population also testifies of the earth's age. By taking the earth's
present percent of population growth and taking into account the history of
Earth's abnormalities and then by simply calculating backwards we should be
able to get a bead on the age of our earth. In an article titled "Creation
vs. Evolution" I found this following interesting calculation:
Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth
rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about
4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this
0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it)
people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years
of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since
the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the
population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly
infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?
The earth's magnetic field also points to a very, very young earth. Scientists
believe that the earth is a large electromagnet and the source of the magnetic
field is probably a large electric current. In 1971, Dr. T. Barnes theorized
that nothing keeps the earth going except its own inertia. Because it is not
being refueled with energy the Barnes theory says that the current is running
down slowly like a flywheel without a motor. Consequently the strength of the
earth's magnetic field is decreasing. Since the first measurement of the earth's
magnetic field in 1835, it has lost 7% of its strength. According to the Barnes
model the strength of the magnetic field should decrease by a constant rate
each year and the data is consistent with just such a decrease. Present data
points to a magnetic field which has lost one-half of its force over the past
1,400 years. Following this line backwards it is clear to see that Earth's age
should be measured in thousands, such as in 6,000, and not billions of years.
Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., is an ICR Adjunct Professor of Physics and as of 1993,
a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. He had this to say:
As measured by clocks on earth, the age of the universe today could be as
small as the face-value biblical age of about 6,000 years.
The earth is very young...6,000 years young and we can prove it.
GOD SAID He created the earth in six literal days about 6,000 years ago.
MAN SAID, "That's absurd."
Now you have THE RECORD.
References
King James Bible
Aardsma, G.E., "Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating," Impact Pub.,
March 1999.
Helder, M., "Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found," Creation ex nihilo,
Vol. 14.
Ham, K., The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved!
Humphreys, R., "The Mystery of the Earth's Magnetic Field", Impact
Pub., Feb. 1989.
The doctrine of uniformitarianism is
central to evolutionary theology. It is this hypothesis that gives
credence to the bizarre eons of time attributed to the age of the earth
and universe. Uniformitarianism theorizes that all things happening in
nature today have come about via a very slow uniform rate since the
earths beginning, which they claim was 1 billion years ago. There is
one major flaw in this hypothesis: its not true. They refuse to
acknowledge the global catastrophe that destroyed the world in the days
of Noah.
Dr. Henry Morris in the book, Defending The Faith, defends Biblical geology. He states,
If
the old world was indeed destroyed by a worldwide flood, then the
rocks, fossils, and sediments must bear record to the great fact of the
flood. However, the standard geology textbooks are all written around
the framework of evolution and uniformitarianism.From
a geological viewpoint, if there was actually a universal flood, then
all the pre-flood geological and geographical structures must have been
changed very drastically. Therefore, we must take full cognizance of
the flood in producing that record. For example, there are many great
deposits of fossils, often in extensive graveyards of fossils. These
seem to speak very clearly of some kind of a catastrophe. Fossils,
especially fossils in large numbers, dont get preserved unless they
are buried quickly. In order to be preserved in the sediments, be
lithified, and be preserved for ages, they certainly would have to be
buried quickly in an aqueous catastrophe.We
also see great faults, fractures, uplifts, and earth movements of a
nature entirely incommensurate with anything happening today. We think
also of the great region-wide lava flows of the Northwest, and of
continental glaciers. Almost every geological phenomenon that we may
study today indicates that forces in the past must have been operating
on a far greater scale than we have now. More and more of even the
orthodox geologists today are accepting at least local catastrophism.
The old type of uniformitarianism is beginning to go out of vogue. The
neo-catastrophists, however, are only speaking of many local
catastrophes, rather than one global cataclysm.As
a matter of fact, some are indeed advocating worldwide catastrophes,
but not the biblical flood. Books have been written promoting close
fly-bys of planets, shifting poles, a slipping crust, astral visitors,
cometary encounters, asteroid swarms, meteoritic impacts, axis
flipping, and all sorts of things. [End of quote]
Acclaimed writer, author, and publisher,
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, in the book, Origins, weighs in on the subject of
uniformitarianism: The idea of rapid, unusual
major geological events catastrophism and the contrasting concept
of slow changes uniformitarianism have played a major role in the
interpretation of the past history of our world. The long ages required
for slow uniformitarian changes would demand that we discard the
biblical account of a recent beginning when explaining the huge
geological layers found on earth. On the other hand, the biblical flood
represents a prime example of catastrophism, in which major events
occur rapidly. Sometimes uniformitarianism is expressed as the present
is the key to the past, meaning in part that the present slow rates of
change represent how changes have always occurred. As expected, the
definitions of both catastrophism and uniformitarianism have come under
close scrutiny, with a resultant plethora of redefinitions and
conflicting usages. [End of quote]
There was once a worldwide catastrophe of
unimaginable proportions commonly known as Noahs flood, and of course
we can prove it. Click on to Noahs Ark Fact of Fiction? and Noah II. Now for todays subject.
GOD SAID, Exodus 20:11:
For
in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in
them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the
sabbath day, and hallowed it.
And according to the geneological record in the scriptures, God created all things just a little over 6,000 years ago.
MAN SAID, Its ludicrous to suggest the earth is 6,000 years old.
Everyone knows its a billion-plus years old. This is just another
example of the uselessness of the Bible.
Now THE RECORD. It is important for carnal man to discredit and cast
off the Word of God. Mans deeds are evil and if there is a God of the
Bible, then man has hell to pay and thats not a very promising
thought. During a TV interview with Julian Huxley, who was the keynote
speaker of the 100th anniversary celebration of Charles Darwins
doctrine of evolution, he was asked why he thought evolution was
globally embraced so quickly. His answer was that it permitted its
adherents sexual freedom. Psalms 2:2-3 depicts this same spirit of rebellion very clearly.
2
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel
together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Uniformitarianism is a foundational platform in the religion of
evolution. Unfortunately for them, their eons of time have been
debunked just one more time.
A research initiative called RATE which stands for Radioisotopes and
the Age of the Earth, was launched in 1997 jointly by the Institute of
Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, and Answers In
Genesis. RATEs team of highly accredited scientists have published
another major blow to the camp of the evolutionists. These following
excerpts are from an article published in the December 2003 issue of Impact,
which carries vital articles on science and creation. The title of the
article is New Rate Data Support A Young World. The first excerpt
reads: New experiments done this
year for the RATE project strongly support a young earth. This article
updates results announced in an ICR Impact article last year
and documented at a technical conference last summer. Our experiments
measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated Helium escapes from tiny
radioactive crystals in granite-like rock. The new data extend into a
critical range of temperatures, and they resoundingly confirm a
numerical prediction we published several years before the experiments.
The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have
escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian age of the
rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today. But
the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of
Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6000 years. Thus
these data are powerful evidence against the long ages of
uniformitarianism and for a recent creation consistent with Scripture.
After laborious research measuring Helium loss in radioactive crystals
called Zircons, which are common in granitic rock, and after reviewing
all existing data on the Helium subject, the RATE team made this final
conclusion: The Zircons Are Young!The
new data allow us to calculate more exactly how long the diffusion has
been taking place. The result is 6000 ( 2000) years about 250,000
times smaller than the alleged 1.5 billion year Uranium-Lead age. This
and other exciting new developments in RATE projects are confirming our
basic hypothesis: that God drastically speeded up decay rates of long
half-life nuclei during the Genesis Flood and other brief periods in
the earths short history. Such accelerated nuclear decay collapses the
uniformitarian ages down to the Scriptural timescale of thousands of
years.
GOD SAID, Exodus 20:11:
For
in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in
them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the
sabbath day, and hallowed it.
And according to the geneological record in the scriptures, God created all things just a little over 6,000 years ago.
MAN SAID, Its ludicrous to suggest the earth is 6,000 years old.
Everyone knows its a billion-plus years old. This is just another
example of the uselessness of the Bible.
Now you have THE RECORD.
References:
King James Bible
Humphreys, D.R., New RATE Data Support A Young World, Impact, 12/03, Institute For Creation Research
Morris, H., Defending the Faith, Master Books, 2003
Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 11:11
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa
The earth's population also testifies of the earth's age. By taking the earth's present percent of population growth and taking into account the history of Earth's abnormalities and then by simply calculating backwards we should be able to get a bead on the age of our earth. In an article titled "Creation vs. Evolution" I found this following interesting calculation:
Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?
I dont know a great deal about some of the subjects youve brought up, so for now Ill limit my comments to sociology, which I do know fairly well. Though, this particular argument is so poorly and irrationally formed that I need little intelligence or expertise to counter it effectively.
(1) These calculations assume that a constant .5% population growth rate existed throughout human history. First, that is an arbitrary number; second, to use any rate cumulatively is ridiculous. Population rate increase always grows ahead of food production, or attempts to. Therefore, the former is checked by the latter. Until ~10,000 years ago world population had been very low, and had been stable for millennia, because food production was simple hunting and gathering. When farming was introduced, population density and growth could rise. However, growth today is still checked by food production: a population of trillions on earth is impossible given the current technology used in agriculture.
(2) Bones decay, and were not buried until very recently. We cannot locate the bones of the masses of people that we know existed in the historical period, say the 50 million Romans, and you find it surprising that the bones of people from thousands of years earlier are missing?
(3) Your last point makes no sense. Are you saying that the genetic variation in humans found today is too great to have developed from a small population? On a serious note, I will say that you back that claim by nothing, and that many geneticists have made contradictory conclusions. In fact, recently, there has been some evidence that the original human population in Africa was even smaller than previously thought. Second, how can you claim that a worldwide population of say 100,000 people 10,000 years ago was too small to provide the current diversity, and yet claim that all current people alive are descendents of a handful of Noahs family?
If this sort of work is representative of the scientists who perform the experiments mentioned in your post, then to me you've lost any credibility you might have had. Also, sources from religious institutes are of less value that those from non-religious institutes, simply because reason is the dogma of the latter, while faith, antithetical to reason and science, rules the former. Im not saying that all science done by Christians is wrong; I just find is curious that all of your sources are Christian. Finally, keep in mind that disproving A does not prove B. Even if you can prove that the earth is only 6,000 years old, which I think your unlikely to do, that does not prove the validity of the bible in full, or of existence of god, or of the righteousness of your faith.
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa
Is that proof?
Hardly
Edited by Herodotus
"Dieu est un comdien jouant une assistance trop effraye de rire."
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
-Francois Marie Arouet, Voltaire
Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 12:04
Thank god.
"Dieu est un comdien jouant une assistance trop effraye de rire."
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
-Francois Marie Arouet, Voltaire
They are idolatrists: they worship words. God (assuming its existence)
speaks with facts - or isn't "he" truth? Truth speaks by facts and
evidence, hardly by mythic records.
Look at a comb. While looking at this comb ask yourself: "What are the chances of this comb coming together by itself?". Calcuate it if you want.
Now look at the world around you. While looking at it ask yourself: "What are the chances of the world coming together by itself?" Calcuate it if you want.
Do not tell me that chances do not mater. They do.
u guys should have a bit more respect for other people's beliefs. It is rather provocative to openly mock the contents of a holy book. I can't see you all acting like this if it were some Quranic content that was being debated.
Look at a comb. While looking at this comb ask
yourself: "What are the chances of this comb coming together by
itself?". Calcuate it if you want.
Now look at the world around you. While looking at it ask yourself:
"What are the chances of the world coming together by itself?" Calcuate
it if you want.
What are the chances of God coming together by itself? You don't solve
this problem by believing in a god, it only makes it even more unlikely.
Now look at the world around you. While looking at it ask yourself:
"What are the chances of the world coming together by itself?" Calcuate
it if you want.
Again, you're getting the microstate and macrostate confused.
Look at a comb. While looking at this comb ask yourself: "What are the chances of this comb coming together by itself?". Calcuate it if you want.
Now look at the world around you. While looking at it ask yourself: "What are the chances of the world coming together by itself?" Calcuate it if you want.
Do not tell me that chances do not mater. They do.
and by the way; I am GK2's older brother.
More to come...
Ahh, so this is turning into a family affair, eh?
Now. let me ask you this. Are there things in nature that happen because of the way that the universe is, simply because there are certain rules, or does everything in your opinion require God's intervention? If say two bodies are attracted to each other because of gravity, is it because God has a hand in it, or is because gravity simply is a rule of the universe?
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
u guys should have a bit more respect for other people's beliefs. It is rather provocative to openly mock the contents of a holy book. I can't see you all acting like this if it were some Quranic content that was being debated.
Oh yes we would, or at least I would. And it's not really a mockery... I think that people's holy texts contain information which is useful for one's own spiritual life, and that from a social aspect, most of their teachings are as applicable today as they were when the text was written. I also think that many, if not most things in the Bible and other texts like the Quran, are metaphors. Why is it that when the Bible speaks of common tales, they are metaphors for something else which should be adapated and explained to fit our modern life, but the Book of Genesis has to be taken at face value? When it says the Earth was created in 6 days, but when light was created after Earth, who can say how long a day was? It could have been billions of years or a second for that matter, since the concept of a day only exists if light exists.
I think that if the Bible was divinely inspired (which in my personal opionion it wasn't), then Genesis has to be taken as a metaphor. If it wasn't divinely inspired and was written simply to reflect the scientific worldview of 3000 years ago, then it is simply obsolete as a scientific explanation of the creation of the world. I would be much more willing to acknowledge the Book of Genesis as a metaphor, than to accept a story about an Earth that is 6000 years old, and has suffered some sort of catastrophic flood...
I don't want to offend anyone, but from what I know, I also think that the Genesis story in the Quran is flawed as well. I belive the story goes something like:
First of all, there was nothing but Allah, and (then He created His Throne). His throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the Heavens and the Earth
Where did the water come from if there was nothing but Allah? What about the throne? Doesn't the Quran also say that the Earth was flat as well?
Anyway, before anyone jumps out and gets all offended, these are my personal opinions. I simply think that religious texts in general reflected the scientific knowledge of the period, which is plainly obsolete. It's not taht I have something against one particular religion or another, but simply that I don't think any religion is scientific and bulletproof when it comes to explaining things like the beginning of the universe.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Posted: 29-Nov-2005 at 01:42
There has to be light in order to have a day? Interesting I thought a day was 24 hours. Alaska goes thru periods of the year where they dont receive sun light.
Interesting you said that because in the Bible it does make reference to a day being of a thousand years and a thousand years being of a day. I am a christian and also find myself wondering how the world can be so young? One of the main questions I ask myself is why arent there many references to dinosaurs if we co-existed with them? Does anyone know here if there have been any dino bones to be dug up in the lands that the Bible talks of such as Egypt, Israel and so forth....? Maybe the reason is for the lack of actual dinos living in the lands that the Bible was written in.
There has to be light in order to have a day? Interesting I thought a day was 24 hours. Alaska goes thru periods of the year where they dont receive sun light.
There has to be light in order to have a day differentiated from a night. Moreover a 'day' in the sense of 'day' vs 'night' is different from a 'day' as a standardised measure of time (including both night and day) representing the period of rotation of the earth.
The length of a 'day' in the first sense can be anything from zero to six months, depending where and when you are. The length of a day in the second sense is currently approximately 24 hours but it has not always been that, and is indeed changing.
The length of a day in the second sense can also be expressed as approximately 1/365.2422 of a year but that also is not constant.
And all of this of course only applies to earth. Days on other planets can be virtually any length.
What Genesis means by a 'day' is anybody's guess. Why would it mean 'on earth'? And if it did, does it mean in the Antarctic or on the equator?
And, in view of someone else's comment, the same goes for the Koranic treatment of the month and the year.
Interesting you said that because in the Bible it does make reference to a day being of a thousand years and a thousand years being of a day. I am a christian and also find myself wondering how the world can be so young? One of the main questions I ask myself is why arent there many references to dinosaurs if we co-existed with them? Does anyone know here if there have been any dino bones to be dug up in the lands that the Bible talks of such as Egypt, Israel and so forth....? Maybe the reason is for the lack of actual dinos living in the lands that the Bible was written in.
Because whoever wrote the Bible stories knew nothing whatsoever about dinosaurs, or the distant past, or Australia or America or even most of Europe, Asia and Africa.
Which means it is highly unlikely to have been God, who, by all accounts, is supposed to be pretty well informed about such things.
Unless he was using metaphors, otherwise known as 'lies-to-children'.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum