[
Replying to post 20 by Kenisaw]
Firstly, without trying to lump you in with all non-theists, you appear to pose the same conundrum or paradox. You seem to have rejected the possibility (not probability) of the meta-physical, thereby asking for an explanation of a meta-physical event using purely physical means. Thus you discard any response that suggests the possibility of a meta-physical solution. If such events could be explained by physical/natural means, that would be no 'proof', to you, of the meta-physical/supernatural.
Prove such a light existed. We know the Sun and stars exist, and they create photons as part of the fusion process. But the Bible claims these things came after plants. Plants couldn't have come before stars because the Earth couldn't have come before stars. The Earth has elements that are created by stars - oxygen, carbon, iron, nitrogen, etc. You can't have carbon based life forms without the carbon that stars create.
The Sun/stars are not the only source of light or photons. I'm currently (no pun intended) writing this under the lighting of an incandescent lamp. Nor is natural sunlight necessary for plant growth. For example, an acquaintance of mine, was recently accused of producing a rather large crop of 'healthy' plants under artificial lighting in a hydroponic set-up. He apparently didn't want it exposed to natural sunlight, for some reason (:-k). As light from natural sources, such as the Sun, is the norm nowadays, this does not exclude the possibility of a meta-physical source at a previous time. Can I 'prove it'? No. One cannot prove an historical event without 'eye-witnesses' or recording equipment, neither of which existed at the time we are examining. Do I believe it is possible? Yes because I accept and believe there to be a meta-physical realm, one outside of our physical 4D space-time universe. Can I prove it? No, not from within this physical universe but there are certain things within it that defy all known physical explanations, thereby leaving only the meta-physical possibilities.
Can the Earth exist before stars? Not according to current naturalistic hypotheses. Yet, the formation of neither a star nor a planet has yet to be observed. It is speculation from a purely naturalistic paradigm. Yes, there are theories such as the accretion model, etc, but each has their own unsolved problems and limitations. As for the production of various elements, you are correct. That is how they occur naturally under current processes but that does not preclude any previous or future method. I often go to the local supermarket and buy an apple turnover (shh . . . don't tell my wife) which is produced in large commercial bakeries. But this does not preclude the possibility of the apple turnovers my grandmother use to make, many years ago, in her kitchen wood fire oven.
6 And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.� 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
Synonyms for firmament: vault, lid, canopy.
A couple of points need to be clarified here. Firstly, the original Hebrew word translated to 'firmament' is - רָקִיעַ. (râqı̂ya‛ -
raw-kee'-ah) from רָקַע (râqa‛ -
raw-kah'); properly an expanse, that is, the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky: - an open space. It is that which we call the sky or atmosphere.
Secondly, the water was above and below this expanse, therefore the water, according to your interpretation is above and below the canopy, as opposed to being the canopy, itself.
As you look out your window, you see a denser material (liquid water) closer to the gravitational center of the Earth than a less dense material (the atmosphere). They aren't separated either, they are in contact with each other, just like the more dense rock is below the less dense water. Or are you going to tell us those rocks at the bottom of the ocean aren't wet?
The clouds are not touching the sea, there is an atmosphere or air space separating the two. Yes, the atmosphere contains water molecules but they do not necessarily, due to meteorological reasons, form the clouds.
During your studies, I hope someone explained to you that the Oort Cloud is almost entirely empty space. You could travel around in that area for light years and never see a single thing. I find it a poor rationalization to claim the Oort cloud is the water above the firmament...
Yes, I am aware that the Oort Cloud is "almost entirely empty space" but, then again, so is an atom (a hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space). I mentioned the Oort Cloud only to remind you that water encircles, sparsely though it may be, the entire Solar System.
According to which facts? All of them, Smalls. And I do mean all. Literally every single piece of empirical data and evidence ever gathered by geology, paleontology, morphology, biology, genetics, and so on shows the Earth to be billions of years old and that flight didn't develop until after land creatures first crawled out of the sea.
Ok, when you say "Literally every single piece of
empirical data" (emphasis added), what do you mean by the term, which you often use, 'empirical'? According to most dictionaries, 'empirical data' means "data derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory". What experiments have been performed to show that flying creatures came after land creatures? Who observed the original transitions? Now, while there are numerous fossils of life forms with various characteristics, the interpretation of this data is usually in accordance with a particular theory, not independent of the theory. Each fossil is just a snapshot at a single time at a single location or niche. It is not a frame from a film, being a sequence of snapshots. Palaeontologists, placing them in a sequence, do so according to their theory, again, not independent to that theory. This is what is known as
confirmation bias.
Karl Benz made the first auto in 1885. So I guess we need to credit a different god for Earth in your example?
Again, what facts? All of them Smalls. The process that produces iron (and all the other elements outside hydrogen) is fission or supernovae. If that's the process your god made, then the Earth couldn't have existed before the stars. Not sure how a supposed omni-everything deity couldn't get that right in it's dictated book (or inspired book, depending on which believer you ask).
Again, this is your apparent preconceived opinion that 'things' can only happen naturally. While we understand that these heavier elements do form by this method naturally, it does not preclude the possibility of a 'once of' supernatural occurrence. Have you (unbiasedly) considered that this "omni-everything deity" did so and stated as much in His book? You, due to your preconceived bias against the meta-physical, may just refuse to believe Him.
Auto-correct got me here.
Yes, it gets me sometimes, too.
I meant to type the moon does not emit light. The Bible calls the moon a lesser light, and the Sun a greater light. The moon doesn't emit squat
Again, I am confused by your terminology. (Then, again, it may be you who is confused). By your argument, you appear to use the term 'emit' to mean 'produce' or 'be the primary source'. If that is so, you are correct, the moon does not produce light as the 'primary source'. The problem is that the passage in Genesis 1 does not state that the moon is a 'primary source'. Again, looking at the original Hebrew, the word used is - '�וֹר ('ôr -
ore) - A primitive root; to be (causatively make) luminous (literally and metaphorically)'. The word 'luminous', according to most dictionaries means 'radiating or reflecting light; shining; glowing'. I believe 'reflecting light' to be a reasonable description of the light from the moon. Therefore, the Genesis passage is correct.
Your killing me, Smalls. I've asserted nothing without evidence. The fact that heavier elements are created by stars, the fact that land animals are older than winged creatures, the fact that the moon does not emit light, the fact that plants could not exist before the Sun and stars, is all empirical data. The fossil record is empirical data. Genetics is empirical data. Trying to use Hitchen's razor is merely cutting your own throat...
As for your claim "I've asserted nothing without evidence" and
Hitchen's Razor, you have certainly made claims to there being vast amounts of evidence supported by facts or what you call facts, (again, I think you need to check the meaning of the term 'fact'.) But actual 'facts' by you have been in very short supply. You have provide generalisations regarding points in various theories as 'facts', supposedly supported by 'empirical data', that I have shown to be false. These are the product of confirmation bias and not 'facts'.
So, until you can provide real evidence to support your argument, (by Hitchens Razor) you are wrong. Not generalisations, not assumptions nor speculation and not just extrapolation but real 'facts' are what I have been requesting from you in support of your opinion.
Have a good day!
Still small
