Science AND Genesis

[DaveD49]

This is an offshoot from the "Science vs. Genesis" topic but it covers a different main premise. That topic suggested a conflict between the two. My topic shows where there is agreement. I think that everyone would agree that it would be extremely rare for any 4000 year old document, especially one that existed for thousands of years in oral form before it was written down, to agree with ANY modern scientific concept. The very first chapter of the first book of the Bible can be seen to agree with five of them. (Not only that, but the very first Hebrew word of the first chapter of the Bible reveals a stunning prophecy which came true 2000 years later, but that is another subject.) The five modern scientific concepts and theories are the concept of a slowly developing Earth, the concept of "super-continents" such as Pangea, abiogenesis, and evolution. None of these concepts were familiar to the people of the age when it was written.

Slowly forming Earth

Now the earth was formless and void, there was darkness over the deep, and God's spirit hovered over the water. God said 'Let there be light', and their was light.

(Gen1:2-3)

Imagine for a minute that you were sitting on the planet at the time it was first developing from slowly settling dust, moisture and stone. You would be able to see nothing, because the dust and moisture in the sky would block out all to sun's rays. Over a loooong period of time eventually as more dust settled the light of the sun could be seen even though you still could not see the sun itself. I have read where scientists have said that during this period of time it rained for over 10,000 years. We are in what the Bible calls the first day. The sun and the moon do not become visible until the fourth day. (BTW the Hebrew word interpreted as "day" can also be interpreted as "age" or "eon". Look it up.)

Super-Continents

God said, 'Let the waters under the heavens come together in a single mass and let dry land appear'. And so it was. God called the dry land 'earth' the the mass of waters 'seas'

(Gen1:9-10)

As more dust settled, dry land appeared starting in one place with one land mass.

Abiogenesis

This is a discredited scientific theory about the origins of life from the primordial goo, or "dirt", but it seems that the Bible agrees with it.

God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees...

(Gen 1:11)

God said, Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly about the earth within the vault of heaven.

(Gen 1:20)

God said, Let the earth produce every kind of living creature: cattle, reptiles, and every kind of wild beast.

Gen 1:24

Note that in each case it does not say that God "zapped" them into being, but rather caused the EARTH or the WATERS to produce them. Note also the Bible also states

Evolution

Note please that in general the order of appearance of various living things corresponds to an evolutionary line-up. Simple plants, sea life, "great sea monsters", reptiles, mammals and man.

[DaveD49]

I love the fact that you bring up Joshua and the sun stopping..... it sounds vaguely like some other time.... Oh! I know. Fatima 1918 where 70000+ people witnessed that the sun zigged-zagged across the sky, seemingly spin extremely rapidly and seemed to come so close to Earth as to touch it. There are hundreds of written testimonies to that event. If God wishes that the sun seem to stand still or time to stop, it is His universe... He can do what He wants with it. If He wants the sun to apparently spin like a top and seemingly almost touch the Earth, He can do that too. You cannot accept that any of this could happen so therefore they are absurdities. Sorry, but you have your head stuck in a hole.

Debunked.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2 ... acles.html

When you invent a god that can do anything, then it becomes handy to use it to explain anything that seem extraordinary at first glance. So far, no gods have been necessary, except in the minds of hard core believers who desperately need to prop up their beliefs.

No one has "invented" God. His presence has been felt by man since the dawn of human existence. If you actually think that site actually debunks Fatima then you are fooling yourself. Can you please explain how three small children could have predicted that such an event would occur at that exact place and time? Can you explain how the soaking wet clothes of the people and the ground suddenly became dry? You want to make an issue that "thousands" (?????) said they saw nothing but ignore the fact that at virtually every crime where people were in a place to witness it happening there are some who have said the exact same thing when police ask them what they saw. It is their way of saying "I do not want to be involved."

Again I'll stick my nose in because you ask about Fatima. But first, You conflate the experience of 'God' (name your own) with God as per the Bible and Christianity. Biblegod is invented as much as any other god. The human experience of a god is common to all religion and whether it is a god or just a common human mental effect, your slapping the invented Biblegod on it makes that an 'invented' god.

I disagree. Certainly there are different manmade ideas about God, and most likely NONE of the various religions have the true concept of God completely correct. There certainly things in different faiths which with I disagree. I am not looking forwards to having 72 virgins in heaven. But as I pointed out one Supreme Being must exist and He logically must be timeless and thus eternal, non-physical, not a part of the universe (though able to interreact within it), be the source of all the energy that is, have unmeasurable intellect, etc. You can slap any title like "Bible God" (or maybe "Dave's God") if you like. But I am pretty certain when every individual comes before Him with their own concept of Him we will all find that we are incorrect.

As to Fatima, the bottom line is this - the sun did not 'dance'. The pope who said he saw it do so while in his garden, lied, because no such effect was seen (or at least remarked on) by anyone anywhere else. And the effect was a rotating kaleidescope of colours - an optical effect caused by looking at the sun through low cloud. The same 'miracle' was seen in recent years at Knock, Ireland, and I have seen it myself, looking at the sun through film negatives. So given the thing is not real, how did it happen? Again a clue. On the last event Lucia (I think that was the name of the girl) shouted for the crowd to look at the sun and see the Holy Family. Nobody did. Some saw the optical effect and others saw nothing. The girl tried to pull a fraud and it didn't work. This was not her idea, she was being manipulated by the church.

You jump to a few conclusions there. Just because no one else saw it that does not mean that the Pope lied about what he saw. You are trying to make a point because he said he saw the sun "dance".
What is the difference between that and the people at the site who say they saw it "zig-zag"? We spoke before about your experience as a kid looking at the sun through photo graphic negatives. I do not deny that you saw something interesting but to say that was the exact same thing as occurred in Fatima is a huge stretch. Also, once again you over look one simple fact. 70,000+ people were assembled there because three small children said that a miracle would occur at that specific place and time a month before it happened. You give an 8 year-old a lot a credit for trying to "pull a fraud" on 70,000 people. You also overlook the fact that 70,000 people including skeptics, atheists and scientists DID see the event. Oh, and the Church thought that the girl was lying when she claimed she saw Mary.

The dry clothes 'miracles' was, from what I can gather, not much of one. It was overcast, even a bit drizzly, but it did not rain. That seems to have happened on an earlier event where it poured and the brollies came out and nothing happened, including everyone stayed wet. Somehow the two events seem to have been confused, possibly because of a news photo of soaking people with umbrellas which is an earlier event and someone got the idea that was a downpour at the later event.

Interesting that you brought up the clothes. From everything I have read the testimony was that it have been raining heavily and the clouds parted as if they were a curtain. But, I was in home improvement sales for quite a while and one of my customers said that his grandfather was an eyewitness to the events at Fatima. His grandfather had told him that both his clothes and the ground were soaking wet and that when the sun seemingly came close to the Earth no one was burnt but his clothes and the ground were completely dry. Not only that he said that his clothes were as if they had just been pressed as well. I hadn't heard of that claim before. In the photos made just prior to the event numerous fully extended umbrellas can be seen.

I'll skip over the political vs church machinations, but pick up this point about the three children. It was the one girl made this claim about a vision of an angel, but one that looked like a peasant girl with ear hoops and a short skirt. Not the heavenly queen of Immaculate conception cult statues, which is what the vision was made into later on. It is not at all clear that the other two kids endorsed this claim or saw it and I note that a later 'message' made some veiled warnings about the boy Jacinta, I recall the name was, and inconveniently. the two died in the influenza plague so they couldn't be asked about it later on. Lucia however hid not expire but remained alive to be shoved into a nunnery where this illiterate peasant girl produced a book setting out what suited the Church very well.

Fatima is most certainly NOT a miracle, even without Church exploitation of an initial dubious vision - claim.

Where there any church machinations? I don't doubt that there were some. I would agree that the mention of the Immaculate Conception has always seemed out of place to me. It has been a while since I read about Fatima but I do not recall Lucia's vision of an angel that looked like a peasant girl. You place an unfounded sinister plot to the fact that two of the children died young "so they couldn't be asked about it later on." Lucia did not "hide" nor was she "shoved" into a nunnery, she became a nun of her own free will. And even if at the time she was illiterate at age 8 she did not remain so for the rest of her life.

Can you see at all the lengths you are going to twist what happen to try to distort it to something that you could package up and dismiss?

[Tcg]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

Moderator Action

I'm not sure why this went unnoticed for so long, but this topic contains no question for debate. Moved to an appropriate subforum.

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

Moderator Action

I'm not sure why this went unnoticed for so long, but this topic contains no question for debate. Moved to an appropriate subforum.

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

Hmm. It seems that with over 100 responses that other people had no problem seeing a question for debate. I am still fairly new here so I have to ask if there a specific format that must be followed and if so where can that format be found?

[brunumb]

Do you deny that IF God truly does exist and is responsible in some way for the creation of all things that making it appear that the sun stopped or spun rapidly or seemingly come close to Earth would be child's play for Him?

If the creator and fine-tuner of the universe engaged in the kind of tom-foolery described in the Bible and alleged miraculous events like Fatima, I would think he was a prize doofus. But I don't. That's because the god of the Bible does not exist.

[brunumb]

But as I pointed out one Supreme Being must exist and He logically must be timeless and thus eternal, non-physical, not a part of the universe (though able to interreact within it), be the source of all the energy that is, have unmeasurable intellect, etc.

Nope. No supreme being must exist. There is nothing logical about assigning such a being with attributes it has never demonstrated to possess.

[Tcg]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

Moderator Action

I'm not sure why this went unnoticed for so long, but this topic contains no question for debate. Moved to an appropriate subforum.

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

Hmm. It seems that with over 100 responses that other people had no problem seeing a question for debate. I am still fairly new here so I have to ask if there a specific format that must be followed and if so where can that format be found?

Yes, there is. It can be found here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6.

Please pay special attention to this rule:

3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.

[Diogenes]

No one has "invented" God. His presence has been felt by man since the dawn of human existence.

You are begging the question AND necessarily claiming there is no point to this forum, that there is no room for debate. The very point of Christian apologetics is to try to defend the notion that God, god, or gods are not human inventions. I'm fairly sure you yourself concede the point that ALL gods are human inventions... except for yours.
You simply carve out an exception for the one YOU believe in. As the old saying goes,
We are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do.

That some have "felt" 'his' presence (whatever that means) is as relevant as the statement that men "knew" the Earth was flat.

[DaveD49]

But as I pointed out one Supreme Being must exist and He logically must be timeless and thus eternal, non-physical, not a part of the universe (though able to interreact within it), be the source of all the energy that is, have unmeasurable intellect, etc.

Nope. No supreme being must exist. There is nothing logical about assigning such a being with attributes it has never demonstrated to possess.

Actually you are right. While we can logical surmise that there is a "Supreme Being" just as there must be a "tallest tree" that logical run will not determine the character or attributes of the Supreme Being. It wouldn't even bring you to knowledge of His actions. The logical sequence by which you can arrive at the character and attributes and actions of the "Prime Mover" is the First Cause argument. It is through that logical argument that you can see that He must timeless, non-physical, not a part of the universe but can interact with it, is omnipotent and have immeasurable intellect. I thought I posted that somewhere, but maybe it was on a different site. I'll look it up.

[DaveD49]

Do you deny that IF God truly does exist and is responsible in some way for the creation of all things that making it appear that the sun stopped or spun rapidly or seemingly come close to Earth would be child's play for Him?

If the creator and fine-tuner of the universe engaged in the kind of tom-foolery described in the Bible and alleged miraculous events like Fatima, I would think he was a prize doofus. But I don't. That's because the god of the Bible does not exist.

That is a dodge... it doesn't answer my question. One more time... IF God truly does exist (that is something that you cannot truly know with absolute certainty so the claim "He does not exist" doesn't work) and is responsible in some way for the creation of all things, then wouldn't the concept making it appear that the sun stopped or spun rapidly or seemingly come close to Earth would be child's play for Him?

[DaveD49]

No one has "invented" God. His presence has been felt by man since the dawn of human existence.

You are begging the question AND necessarily claiming there is no point to this forum, that there is no room for debate. The very point of Christian apologetics is to try to defend the notion that God, god, or gods are not human inventions. I'm fairly sure you yourself concede the point that ALL gods are human inventions... except for yours.
You simply carve out an exception for the one YOU believe in. As the old saying goes,
We are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do.

That some have "felt" 'his' presence (whatever that means) is as relevant as the statement that men "knew" the Earth was flat.

I am not saying that at all. But I think I see where you are having difficulty. I think your confusion lies in that you cannot see the difference between man's idea of God and God as He truly is (and that is unknown by anyone). Yes. Man has countless ideas about God and His nature and man has had countless concepts of what they think God wants us to do, even to the point of human sacrifice. But none of man's ideas come close to His true nature. So man's ideas about God most certainly are a human invention, but the true nature of God lies far beyond our capabilities of finding out. So no matter what man's concept of God is, no matter what man thinks God wants him to do, even no matter if they believe there is a God or not, they are ALL seeking the exact same Being whose true nature is unknown. How do we get an insight into what God may actually want? The ONLY way we can know anything about God is if God chose to reveal something about Himself. I believe that He has done just that... not just through the Bible but also through the sacred writing of other faiths as well. Is everything true in any of these texts? NO! You have to sift through them to find the truths they contain. You wont find the truths unless you have an open mind and are looking for them. But truth is truth no matter where it is found. I remember some time ago that I asked a group of Christians where they think a certain quote came from. There is no way that I remember it fully but it went something like:
"We must love God fully. Not just say we love Him but love Him in fact.
We must love God exclusively, loving other things because of Him..."
(Try as I might I cannot remember the third and most powerful line) Most of the answers I received said a particular place in the Bible. No one guessed its true origin... The Bhagavad Gita, one of the sacred texts of Hinduism. Truth is truth no matter where it is found.

I am truly sorry that you have not been able to sense Him. I do constantly. I remember once when I visited a LaSallette shrine in Massachusetts. The instant I stepped on the property I was overwhelmed with the sense of the presence of God. I had to sit under a tree and went into deep meditation for almost an hour. We went to Mass there. Fantastic. Everything about our visit there that day was incredible. Some time later I visited another LaSallette shrine in Florida. I was expecting the same feeling I had at the first one, but .... nothing.... We attended Mass there and for the homily the priest gave a money-sermon. That is why I thought I could not sense Him in the same way I did at the first one. Sometime latter I visited the Massachusetts shrine again and .... nothing..... Again we went to Mass there and again the priest gave a money-sermon.
I was very disappointed.