Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Saying that the Earth was created as a void on the first day has to do with something not mentioned until the fourth day? Uh, okay.

And how is that different from saying that it is literal?

Except that the oceans and seas formed 3.8 billion years ago. The Snowball Earth hypothesis deals with an event hundreds of millions of years ago. Needless to say, the oceans existed far before the Earth was HYPOTHESIZED to have been covered in ice.

You said that the firmament was a reference to the skies. In a sense that is true, but it is not a reference to the skies as we know them today.

Which is why the theory doesn't go beyond the singularity.

WHO knows that something happened? Most scientists would not make any claims about something happening before the Big Bang.

 

Sorry.

Which gods? How many of them? If a Hindu claims there are six and you claim there are three, what test can you conduct to show that he's wrong, or what test can he do to show you are wrong? Not testable? Not evidence.

Did you understand about proposed explanations implying predictions? You SAY you understand, but everything you say indicates otherwise. You seem to have no grasp of models, of tests, of evidence, of falsifiability. You seem to think asserting something with lots of belief makes it come true.

Again, you do not understand the nature of evidence. "Space" is a term to describe a body of related observations. The observations are real, even if you wish to play games with words.

And again, you give resounding indication of misunderstanding. Anyone could put on a blindfold, spin around until dizzy, point at random, and say "MY gods did this" and nobody could prove them wrong. Or right. And that in turn means no sensible predictions can be made, except I can predict that anything ever observed, or its opposite is "evidence" of anyone's imaginary gods. Prove me wrong.

We don't need to. We know from his writing, his letters, his interviews, his conversation, his answers to direct questions that he did not accept Christ. This is known as "direct evidence", a concept you seem to find baffling and foreign.

 

So Genesis is nothing like science.
Got it.

 

It doesn't say the earth was created as a void.

It just is. Sorry you do not understand the English language enough to understand what I am saying.

So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

So we agree. You have to have faith to believe in the Big Bang Theory.

That is part of the theory. Something happened. There has to be a beginning. The singularity. There has to be a catalyst. They don't know what it was or how to explain it.

 

Seems no one understands you but it's everyone else's fault.

 

"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; "

It certainly does.

It is, but you can't explain how it is? And how about we cut out the insults, huh?

The heck are you talking about?

Uh, no , I don't think we do agree. Considering that there is nothing about the Big Bang theory that deals with taking anything on faith.

No, that's the incredible part, there doesn't have to be a beginning. Time started with the onset of the Big Bang. Cause and effect relies completely on the existence of time. Considering that time didn't exist before the Big Bang, it is nonsense to say that there was a "beginning".

 

You seem to know more about what I do and don't understand.
Because you don't understand my opinions, you think that I somehow must misunderstand basic concepts or whatever.

Like regarding space. Scientists really don't understand what space is. What the fabric of space is. And how an electron can go from point A to point B without traveling through the space in between. But if we are to believe the scientists this happens although they don't know why and can't tell us how. Just have faith that what they say is true.

If you can decide what Einstein would have thought then so can I.

 

I don't have to decide what Einstein thought. I looked it up and made it my signature.

 

The problem is that the Bible doesn't start with IN THE BEGINNING...

 

And what is anything that is without form and void? It is something which does not exists. So in the beginning God created the heaven and earth, and the earth {did not exist} and God said let there be light.

Do you understand?

Fine, but I'm not going to re-explain everything I write.

The bible does not give timeline references to things that happened. It is irrelevant if they happened 3.8 billion years ago, or 650 million years ago, only that the bible says that they happened.

I still don't know what you mean by sky being different or what difference it makes.

I don't know how you can say that since most astrophysicists will explain to you that they don't know what happened before the singularity but they know something happened.

We are examining two sides of the same coin.

 

Pick one.

Well if it works for science I guess it should work for religion.

No space is something that science doesn't know what it is. They are clueless as to what space is. Here, watch this:
[video=youtube;5iZ1-csQFUA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iZ1-csQFUA[/video]

Exactly. You can no more prove that God didn't do it anymore than I can prove he did.

Perhaps he changes his mind.

 

A void would imply space existed. Which is did not. The big bang was not a bang into a void, but the expansion of spacetime itself.

Again, I suggest reading a science text book before posting on the subject.

 

Complete speculation on your part.
Does he strike you as the kind of guy who just flips on a whim?
Look around. You won't find it.

 

No. I don't understand. You're saying that the Earth simultaneously existed and did not exist.

You didn't explain it in the first place. You just said that they were different with no explanation whatsoever.

It does give a timeline, it lists subsequent event after subsequent event. How is that not a timeline? You said that the Snowball Earth was God "gathering the waters into one place" (even though the entire Earth isn't really "gathering into one place") and that the water then melted that water to make the seas. The seas existed BEFORE the water was hypothetically covering the entire Earth.

A solid dome covering the Earth is not the same thing as the expanse of space that we call the sky. What difference does it make? Well, it steals credence from your beliefs about the Bible being accurate in any shape or form.

Nope, they wouldn't. Shall I start pulling quotes from leading astrophysicists in the field?

And of course you actually ignore what I said.

 

What about not even acknowledging that stamps exist? That would be more like Atheism. In the context of your example, you could literally stick stamps on their noses but they would swear that stamp (stuck to their nose) isn't really there.

 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

You have to post the whole verse. Earth wasn't nothing. It existed and was dark and formless but had a surface and waters. According to the bible. Then god starts decorating.
You think he created something that doesn't exist after he creates it?
You wonder why people don't understand you?

 

Everything you say only reiterates that you don't know what you're talking about.

And there you go again. What science has is experimental results. If these results are not understood, scientists say they don't undertstand them. They're not asking you for faith, they're asking you to look at the damn experimental results. When a scientist says "this is not understood" you don't have to take that on faith. He is TELLING you it's not understood.

And there you go again! I am not deciding, Einstein decided - and said so often and at considerable length. You are putting words into his mouth, I'm only telling you what his own words said. But apparently evidence remains a mystery to you. You seem to think Making Stuff Up is how things come true, because that's all you know how to do.

 

Pick one what?

The scientific method works for science. It is useless for religion

Further excretions omitted.

 

Atheists do not deny that religion exists. They simply don't have one.

No, that would be more like religion. Religion excels at denying reality. That's what it's for.

No, that's what True Believers do. Atheists tend to accept current understandings of reality, even understanding that those understandings are tentative and subject to change anytime something new is learned. Religion prides itself on never learning anything.

 

They deny GOD exists. That's the point of being A-THEIST.

What is the 'reality' then...in your own words....

There are plenty of scientists who are religious because they realize that science is only a tool and incapable of advancing the frontiers of knowledge in and of itself. Someone has to have belief and vision to 'think outside the box' in order to spur exploration beyond established boundaries.

Today it seems that many so-called 'progressives' have elevated science to a religious status as they 'believe' not to 'believe' based on 'scientific' knowledge that is, and has always been incomplete with regard the who, what, where, why & how of this existence we all find ourselves in.

 

But as I said, they do not deny religion exists, just like they do not deny that stamp collecting exists. they know some people believe in various gods, and some people collect stamps. But they do not.

It's our (that is, atheists') best approximation of what we can observe, using our senses often amplified with instruments. It is tentative. We build a model of reality (and the neat thing about science is that where the various fields overlap, they ALWAYS turn out to be mutually consistent, which tends to validate the model). We keep testing that model, refining it and extending it. We do not Make Stuff Up to stroke our insecurities.

Don't be silly. OF COURSE science advances the frontiers of knowledge. It is the only tool for doing so that humans have EVER devised, that works consistently, correctly, and cumulatively. That's why these people ARE scientists.

Yes, I think this is more or less the case, although the history of science is filled with concurrent breakthroughs by different people working independently. So it can also be argued that these spurts happen when the current state of knowledge is sufficient to enable them.

Science is not competent to address these questions. There is a critical trade-off going on here - in exchange for being rigorous, verifiable, and increasingly accurate about what it CAN address, science necessarily "writes off" a whole raft of important questions it can NOT address. This is the price science pays for not being religious or a religion. It is very strictly limited to what can be observed and measured. And so within the boundaries of science, questions like "why are we here" or "what is the purpose of life" are necessarily meaningless questions. Science itself cannot even phrase such questions, much less answer them. They defy the operational definitions science must use to work at all.

 

Nope. "Formless" means "without a DEFINED shape" and "void" means "empty".

But that's not actually important. The original Hebrew was "Tohu wa bohu". Only one of those words can definitively be translated, and it means "waste". As you might expect, then, different translations say different things: "Earth had become desert and empty", or "Earth was unfinished and empty" or "earth had become ruined and uninhabited". In fact it's kind of odd that "formless and void" has become the most common translation since its the one that is least faithful to the original Hebrew.

 

God is a possibility in the sense that a creature larger than our perception can exist , this of course will make it god only for those who can not see or understand it's attributes and limitations . Logically the possibility of another creature that lives outside our god's perception capacity can exist as well ; question is what do we do about it : increase our ability to understand things and how they work or embrace our ignorance and praise the lord ?

 

Americans have confused religion and science with literature.

Genesis is merely a book.
It is literature,
It the foundtional Epic for Western Civilization, as any English teacher ought clearly confirm.

That people have used this writing to insist that the First Cause of Science axioms is equivalent to a personified "Creator" is not relative tmy point that Genesis is an ancient writing which states,... merely makes consecutive statements explaining how the Cosmos unfolded.

Educators have been restrained from examining those statements in a Science course because of secular atheism, while restrained by religious organizations from reading what Genesis actually says.

The end of this matter is that teachers have no free speech in the classroom .
They are restrained from comparing facts with what every generation of our own Western Civilization has read and misunderstood for 2000 years.

Neither the atheists nor the religious organizations want teachers to equate In the beginning with the Big Bang.
Nor will they let science teachers explain that, in fact, light did not immediately appear at the Big Bang, but a long Cosmic Dark Age preceded let there be light.
They oppose recognizing that once "all the waters under heaven were collected, together, into one place", i.e.; Pangea.On and on, teachers can not show Genesis to be right on target because these two forces of evil lies impede the Truth.

 

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of dust and gases) and void [formless]; (an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss].
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the panentheistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (of these transitory things: [mayim: Hebrew])