The Creation

[Dywyddyr]

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis

Very clever, you just made my point AGAIN.
What's number one on the list?
Oh golly! It's exactly what I quoted.

 

[John99]

Look at the first entry. Analyzing a set of facts and coming up with an explanation is a theory. the facts are not called theories.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Look at the first entry. Analyzing a set of facts and coming up with an explanation is a theory. the facts are not called theories.

I have: a theory is the analysis of a set of facts.
Get it yet?

 

[John99]

I have: a theory is the analysis of a set of facts.
Get it yet?

of course i get it. difference is that a FACT is never wrong and the ANALYSIS can be wrong. Which i am not saying it is or isnt in this instance, just felt it was crucial to point this out.

 

[Trippy]

Now as someone is question my critical thinking about this?

Now why doesn't the Genesis story of Creation, support the Scientific hypothesis of Creation? and the Scientific hypothesis of Creation not support the Genesis Creation.

Big Bang, to, Homosapian, they seem to follow the same path along the process.

LET THERE BE LIGHT!​

THE BIG BANG!​

Both involved unfathomable amounts of energy and force.

Which chronology of genesis creation?
There's at leats two that I'm aware of.
Compare Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 to Genesis 2:4-25, let us know which account is the correct one, then try again.

 

[Dywyddyr]

of course i get it. difference is that a FACT is never wrong and the ANALYSIS can be wrong. Which i am not saying it is or isnt in this instance, just felt it was crucial to point this out.

Oops wrong again.
People can be mistaken on what is factual and what isn't. For many years. Something can be proclaimed as a fact only to have it turn out that it wasn't after all.
Just thought that was worth pointing out...

 

[Buffalo Roam]

That's one of the neat things about General Relativity. Most people have never come across the concept, but there's a specific meaning in saying the universe comes from a single point. Imagine you've got an infinitely large sheet of paper with some gridlines drawn on it, and you distribute some mass and energy at various places throughout the sheet. So now you've got an infinite universe on a grid. What GR says is that as the universe expands, it's not really that the objects on this grid are moving apart (on average). Rather, spacetime itself is stretching and the very definition of distance between points on the grid is what's changing. An immediate mathematical consequence is that if you rewind time about 13 billion years, the measure of distance between any two points on the grid approaches zero, so everything in the infinite universe was supposedly infinitely close together. In the Big Bang model the universe doesn't have any one center, as every point in the universe can be considered the center, and the universe is expanding around each of these points.

So everywhere, and nowhere, all in motion, moving away from each center, in the simplest of explanations?

Interesting, and again a parallel in the Bible, God being Nowhere, Yet Everywhere.

 

[John99]

Oops wrong again.
People can be mistaken on what is factual and what isn't. For many years. Something can be proclaimed as a fact only to have it turn out that it wasn't after all.
Just thought that was worth pointing out...

That is true too. In that case it would be a mistake\error.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Dywyddyr, yes, I am getting a good chuckle from your last post.

Faith supports Science, Science supports Faith.

7000+ years ago, they knew of the Big Bang,

Let There Be Light! ​

Or is the Big Bang wrong?

The Spirit of God passing over the pre-existing waters is the first step of the Creation (just as it does in many creation myths where water is deemed eternal). It's more clearly a retelling of the Sumerian and Babylonian creation myth.

Besides, in the Biblical Creation God doesn't create the stars in heaven until after the Earth is made (on the 4th day...which also seems to be when the Sun and Moon were created, odd since day and night existed on Day 1, though apparently without the Sun being involved). He also creates birds (5th day) before reptiles (6th day) when we know the order was reversed. For that matter, He seems to have separately created species, rather than simply creating single-celled creatures and letting them evolve, which is at odds with what we know.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Which chronology of genesis creation?
There's at leats two that I'm aware of.
Compare Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 to Genesis 2:4-25, let us know which account is the correct one, then try again.

You forgot the end of Genesis 1:31

31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.​

and continue from Genesis 2:1

1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. ​

And as Genesis: 2, follows Genesis: 1, both are correct as one compliments the other, they are not two seperat stories, but the whole story, Genesis.

 

[Pandaemoni]

You forgot the end of Genesis 1:31

31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.​

and continue from Genesis 2:1

1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. ​

And as Genesis: 2, follows Genesis: 1, both are correct as one compliments the other, they are not two seperat stories, but the whole story, Genesis.

He doesn't create the bird , for example until 2:19, after he created Adam. This is inconsistent with the "first" creation where birds are made on the fifth day and mankind (possibly Adam) on the 6th. Also He makes Eve only as a companion to Adam and only after the fact, whereas the two sexes appeared well before humans evolved, so would have existed from the very start of the species.

In any event, why try to pigeonhole the scientific view of the universe into the creation myth? The Hindu creation myth seems far more accurate to me (they, for example, understood that the universe was billions of years old, not thousands), but would that alone make you want to worship the Hindu gods?

 

[Trippy]

You forgot the end of Genesis 1:31

31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.​

and continue from Genesis 2:1

1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. ​

And as Genesis: 2, follows Genesis: 1, both are correct as one compliments the other, they are not two seperat stories, but the whole story, Genesis.

No, I didn't, forget anything.

In Genesis 1:1-2:3

Earth
Light
Day
Heaven
Land
Grasses, herbs, and fruits
Stars
Sun and the moon
Sea life/Birds
Land life
Man and woman (at the same time, from the same dust)

However in Genesis 2:4-25 we have:
Flowering plants
Man
Animals& birds
Woman (from a rib).

So which order of creation is the correct one (without getting into any of the logical absurdities, or places where contradictions with modern science occur).

 

[Buffalo Roam]

The Spirit of God passing over the pre-existing waters is the first step of the Creation (just as it does in many creation myths where water is deemed eternal).

So is water essential for the Big Bang? Or don't we know? can you explain it?

A explanation that is 7000+ years old, can a word be misinterpreted along the way?

Again just like you, I have faith, mine a Faith in a Divine Action, vs: Your faith in a Human Scientist making a explanation for some supposed event from 14 billion years ago.

I have read some articles on GR and Time, so how does GR and Time effect the Big Bang, some really neat head bashing going on about that concept.

Are we talking about time as in classical mechanics?, or are we talking about Time as in Spacetime?

Are we talking about time as in a Concept with dimensions?

Or Non-mathematical notions of unified spacetime?

Or as a Mathematical concept?

The funny thing is that I accept your science, as I see it in the creation story, a parallel in the sequence of events, so what was a Day in the presence of God Time?, that is something that I don't think we can define, I don't deny your science, I just attribute it to different causes.

 

[Dywyddyr]

A explanation that is 7000+ years old, can a word be misinterpreted along the way?

Where does this "7,000 years" come from?

Old Testament
Main article: Old Testament
The Old Testament consists of a collection of works composed at various times from the twelfth to the second century B.C.

Wiki
That would make it ~3,000 years.

I don't deny your science, I just attribute it to different causes.

In which case you aren't accepting science as science.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Trippy you have forgotten everything, linear progression of the story.....

Chapter 1, follows Chapter 2, a linear progression.

31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.​

The world is formed and complete.

Chapter 2 starts out with the statement that;

1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.​

Then goes back to discuss the happenings as in a flashback, a retrospection.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Where does this "7,000 years" come from?

The earliest aproxamate date of the creation story.

Wiki
That would make it ~3,000 years.

You forgot the Torah, which is much older than the Bible, we include the Torah/Old Testament in our Bible for it's prediction of the birth of Jesus.

In which case you aren't accepting science as science.

Only by your definition of science, and creation.

 

[Trippy]

Trippy you have forgotten everything, linear progression of the story.....

Chapter 1, follows Chapter 2, a linear progression.

31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.​

The world is formed and complete.

Chapter 2 starts out with the statement that;

1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.​

Then goes back to discuss the happenings as in a flashback, a retrospection.

And you're still missing the simple, obvious truth.

It presents a DIFFERENT ORDER
The two versions are CONTRADICTORY

Or do you often present summaries as confused jumbles?

 

[Trippy]

You forgot the Torah, which is much older than the Bible, we include the Torah/Old Testament in our Bible for it's prediction of the birth of Jesus.

Actually, the Pentateuche, the oldest part of the Torah, is still only 3000 years old, so no, he hasn't 'forgotten' anything (in fact he's implicitly included it).

 

[Dywyddyr]

The earliest aproxamate date of the creation story.

So you're assuming it was written then?

You forgot the Torah, which is much older than the Bible, we include the Torah/Old Testament in our Bible for it's prediction of the birth of Jesus.

Many contemporary secular biblical scholars date the completion of the Torah, as well as the prophets and the historical books, no earlier than the Persian period (539 to 334 BCE).

Or at a push

The Jahwist (or J) - written c 950 BCE.

Hmm so 539-334 (or 950) was before ~1200 BC?
(Wiki again).

Only by your definition of science, and creation.

By science's definition of science.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually (I just checked) and you're "supported by science" is even further off that I stated.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

Genesis 1 (New International Version)
Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to your interpretation that would be the formation of Earth followed by the Big Bang?
Way to go...