The Genesis Account and Science

[Ophiolite]

No it doesn't, and everyone keeps telling you that. Why is it you don't listen?

I believe he is using a technique known as preaching.

 

[Saquist]

Gentleman I already knew, yourself and others like youselves would be hard of hearing of the facts. Ophiolite post but doesn't listen...snakelord you're following suit.

I assure you if you said anything relevent to the discussion you'd have my attention. I'll have to ask you to address the facts rather than spaming the thread.

Genesis proves to be just as many people put faith it. It's sad to see scientist restort to slander spite to remove contention. I percieve your lack of reasoning skills as a true telling of the impact this information has had. It's as though it was a strong anti venom adminstered at just he right time.

Of course predicatible you show up bite again.

And Yes Ophiolite it is preaching but it is also teaching, what christian were meant to accomplish.

 

[nova900]

What relevence does before have? And how does it establish a contradiction? What is the impact of this fact?

Well, unless somehow linear time ran in reverse in the bronze age I would say it's very,very relevant.

For instance when Frank Herbert wrote the sci-fi series,Dune, he did not write Children of Dune and the later novels first and then write the first book "Dune"...just does not work this way. You write the first introductory novel and later when writing sequels you draw on material used in the earlier book(s).

Same with the Genesis authors. They wrote this account based on material gathered by earlier,myth creation stories by other cultures and no doubt stories that came to them by the oral story telling tradition in their own culture.
It's really a no -brainer,really!It's very difficult to see that some adults have such difficulty with a very basic concept.

 

[Ophiolite]

What relevence does before have? And how does it establish a contradiction? What is the impact of this fact?

I allowed my curiosity to overcome my natural aversion to stupidity and activated the 'View Post' button that appears for posts by individuals who have been placed on ignore. I must say you have exceeded yourself here Saquist.
You stated that SkinWalkers interpretation, that the Hewbrew creation myths were based upon other myths from the region, could be turned on its head: the other myths could have been based upon the Hebrew story.
You then, in act of pure comedy, ask what relevance does before have?
Saquist if the other myths were written before the Hebrew tales then there is no way the other myths could be based on the Hebrew account. It is irrelevant to even try challenging the accuracy of which came first. Before is simply not only relevant but crucial!

 

[SkinWalker]

What relevence does before have? And how does it establish a contradiction? What is the impact of this fact?

It establishes an origin other than divine for biblical mythology. Namely, a human source and one that has already been established as myth -unless you think that there were gods named Apsu, Tiamat, Marduk, Enki and so on.

I see you crying and moaning that people aren't addressing your "facts" in this post, but I'm wondering what "facts" you've established. If we look back through the thread, the only scientific facts that can be clearly demonstrated with regard to Genesis is that the account was 1) written by more than one person; 2) has origin in earlier myths of Mesopotamia (particularly Sumeria); 3) the authors were, to no surprise of anyone with critical thought skills, not knowledgeable about their world enough to know that angiosperms came much, much later than other plant species.

If, as you claim, your goal is to preach, this thread will close per forum rules. If, as you also claim your goal is to discuss the science related to Genesis, then please discuss it. I've yet to see you engage in that discussion with any scientifically meaningful terms.

 

[Saquist]

How does it establish anything other than before.
How does it establish a human source?

Crying and moaning. Surely not Mr. Walker.

If we look back through the thread one would see alot of heckling and a pervassive build up of snide and stupid remarks.

You've been doing your homework SkinWalker but you haven't gone deep enough. Ther eason some historians believe in a two fold authorships is completely incredulous. The alternating use of God's title in Genesis is a non sequitor. The bible as a whole makes a use of many titles for God because unlike polythesistic cultures Jehovah means..."He who causes to become" in other more simpler terms it means He can become what ever is required to fulfill his purpose.

The Mesopotamian myths I'll address later with a host of supporting evidence. Your claim on this is old and debunked long ago and is considered misinformation for the lack of proof that they expected to be revealed.

My goal is teach and preach as a christian. Those goals are one in the same. The point of this thread is to show the scientific relevancy of the Genesis account. Which I have done.

The process of creation followed a logical and scientific progress up to this point in day four. The bible is the only creation story that tells of the creation of the universe. and then the Earth...acknowledging the propper order.

That is scientificly sound.

The creation of light first. And an expanse of time (undefined) that the Earth existed before it came to first day to be molded by God's purposes...possibily billions of years

That is scientificly sound.

The very descriptions of formless, waste, and dark are perfect scientific descriptions of the an early Earth that has met with the most irrelevent and academic opposition and still remains as a good description of the Earth.

Light present for plant life and the revealing of Sun and the moon from amidst a cloud layer or heavy expanse. Propper and scientific description especial after one looks deeper into the Hebrew...

The search it's self is scientific and the premise is scientific.

Skinwalker...threaten, taunt or choose to participate. I appolgize if my terminolgy is of insufficent educational level for you to consider scientific. But your claim is seeded and in gross error.

I told you before...moderate or participate in a meaningfull discussion but thus far you haven't been doing your moderating task on this thread. The brief amount of participation was welcome. These are questions I can answer and rebuffed...

but claims that the thread isn't using scientific terms is a "claim" that I can only look on with complete incredulousness.

 

[Ophiolite]

The point of this thread is to show the scientific relevancy of the Genesis account. Which I have done.

You have not done so to the satisfaction of any of the scientists, or those with scientific backgrounds, who have posted here.
You have failed to address any of the refutations that have been made of your claims.
Ignoring these refutations and repeating your previous errors will not make you correct, it will merely make you look even more foolish than you already do.
Since you seem to have difficulty seeing these refutations here is a repeat of one from post #15.

“ Originally Posted by Saquist
Would you say that the "Earth was formless and rocky, watery and dark in the begining? ”

Definitively not:

formless Clearly not formless. A very definite form; almost spherical, but somewhat oblate because of the rapid rotation - a day lasted around six hours or less.
Rocky: I'll give you that one.
Watery: Decidedly not. The water we enjoy today is the result of later cometary impact and degassing of the interior.
Dark: Decidedly not. The sun was past its T-Tauri stage. The dust cloud was blown away. The surface was glowing with the heat of formation and short lived radioactive elements.

So on three out of four characteristics, the Genesis account gets it completely wrong. How do you explain that?

 

[SnakeLord]

Gentleman I already knew, yourself and others like youselves would be hard of hearing of the facts. Ophiolite post but doesn't listen...snakelord you're following suit.

I am not following anything, other to concur with the others here, (generally people of science), that there isn't an iota of science in your claims. You try to contend that there is, but "do not listen" to those in a position to tell you there isn't. No Saquist, there isn't any science in your claim that your claims have scientific backing. But of course you'll reject it out of hand.. Everyone else is wrong, you're right, right?

I'll have to ask you to address the facts rather than spaming the thread.

And what "facts" would those be exactly? Kindly provide one "fact".

It's sad to see scientist restort to slander spite to remove contention. I percieve your lack of reasoning skills as a true telling of the impact this information has had.

I resent being slandered by a person claiming I am slandering them. It's hypocritical. Furthermore it is unevidenced in anything I said. I merely stated that there was no science in your claims and asked you why you didn't listen to people, (mainly from a scientific background). Where exactly is the slander?

 

[Saquist]

You have not done so to the satisfaction of any of the scientists, or those with scientific backgrounds, who have posted here.
You have failed to address any of the refutations that have been made of your claims.
Ignoring these refutations and repeating your previous errors will not make you correct, it will merely make you look even more foolish than you already do.
Since you seem to have difficulty seeing these refutations here is a repeat of one from post #15.

“ Originally Posted by Saquist
Would you say that the "Earth was formless and rocky, watery and dark in the begining? ”

Definitively not:

formless Clearly not formless. A very definite form; almost spherical, but somewhat oblate because of the rapid rotation - a day lasted around six hours or less.
Rocky: I'll give you that one.
Watery: Decidedly not. The water we enjoy today is the result of later cometary impact and degassing of the interior.
Dark: Decidedly not. The sun was past its T-Tauri stage. The dust cloud was blown away. The surface was glowing with the heat of formation and short lived radioactive elements.

So on three out of four characteristics, the Genesis account gets it completely wrong. How do you explain that?

Good to see you back Ophiolite....But as I percieved your return I didn't percieve that you woul actually read...

Untill you grasp the bibles meaning of formless in fact a meaning supported by Webster and Merriam and not your own what is there left to say...You're grasping at straws.

Look it up...read it...wear it out.

On your other points...You're out of order...literally. You've done such a poor job following the thread I MUST question your reading comprehension as selective. You CLEARLY do not wish to read or acknowledge certain section of my post and explanation so as to maintain your contrary position.

That being the case how can you say definitely? How can you say anything at all? Even after that cleary and concise summary?

I am not following anything, other to concur with the others here, (generally people of science), that there isn't an iota of science in your claims. You try to contend that there is, but "do not listen" to those in a position to tell you there isn't. No Saquist, there isn't any science in your claim that your claims have scientific backing. But of course you'll reject it out of hand.. Everyone else is wrong, you're right, right?

Popularity? Really...I'm not shocked, snakelord you're remiss of the facts and you're following the flow...NO Snakelord this is no surprise.

And what "facts" would those be exactly? Kindly provide one "fact".

In order for you to see them you must read and acknowledge them. Ophilolite is attempting to contradict those facts but he can not. So at least he sees what you do not because you know exactly what he wants to attack. So you contradict your compadre above with such a statement.

I resent being slandered by a person claiming I am slandering them. It's hypocritical. Furthermore it is unevidenced in anything I said. I merely stated that there was no science in your claims and asked you why you didn't listen to people, (mainly from a scientific background). Where exactly is the slander?

I feel to compelled to arrest you of what senses you have left but I'll attempt to hold my actions in order. Please choose...I am confident before your slanderous statements to the effect of lack of scientific process that it should require little effort.

your argument against the Genesis account has amounted to "I don't see science."

Is not the order presented propper? Yes... It matches other scientiv theories in progress if not in detail. Thereby it is suggesting that the detail of scientific theory are in error. But the Progression is sound.

 

[SnakeLord]

Popularity? Really...I'm not shocked, snakelord you're remiss of the facts and you're following the flow...NO Snakelord this is no surprise.

I find that quite interesting. I am "remiss of the facts" apparently. I go on to ask you to tell me those "facts" but you refuse to answer - instead casting accusation at my reading ability, (as you have done with several others here). Sit back for a moment and ask yourself who really has the problem. As for popularity.. I'm afraid in this instance those with a scientific background carry more weight than a bible believer that likes to use the word "fact" but has absolutely no "facts" to back up his claims with.

In order for you to see them you must read and acknowledge them

Ok sir! I'm ready and willing. Please give me those "facts".

Ophilolite is attempting to contradict those facts but he can not.

Fool! Damn him to hades. As they are "facts" can't you just point him towards new scientist or something which will undoubtedly shut him up?

So you contradict your compadre above with such a statement

I do? No offence pal but all I did was state that there is no science in your claims and then asked you to state what "facts" are present in your argument. How does that contradict anyone? Well?

I feel to compelled to arrest you of what senses you have left but I'll attempt to hold my actions in order.

Sorry am I getting to you? It's just usually when someone is getting to someone else they start with personal insults. Am I getting to you? Is the thought of me burning a hole in your underpants? Why go through a discussion like this? It's like the fifth time now I have seen you personally attack other people where it's not needed. Might I ask why you do that? Of course if that's the road you'd like to go down then please pm me. I will just make mention that you'll be up way past your bedtime and will eventually need to pay someone like me to fix the damage I do to your ego.

I am confident before your slanderous statements to the effect of lack of scientific process that it should require little effort.

I will concede that people have a different level of sensibility. As such I will ask you to kindly point out exactly where I slandered you.

your argument against the Genesis account has amounted to "I don't see science."

Kindly explain what in genesis is in agreement with science. I know you've stated a couple of things that have been disputed but kindly restate them in numbered format briefly so I can point out the inherent flaws in your claims.

Is not the order presented propper?

Proper to what?

Yes... It matches other scientiv theories in progress if not in detail.

Bizarre, back on page 1 you said you'd only accept scientific facts, not something that molds to scientific theory. You said it and yet here you are going on about scientific theory.. Is hypocrisy a major part of your life? However, kindly show how it matches scientific theories. Sources if you don't mind.

 

[Saquist]

I find that quite interesting. I am "remiss of the facts" apparently. I go on to ask you to tell me those "facts" but you refuse to answer - instead casting accusation at my reading ability, (as you have done with several others here). Sit back for a moment and ask yourself who really has the problem. As for popularity.. I'm afraid in this instance those with a scientific background carry more weight than a bible believer that likes to use the word "fact" but has absolutely no "facts" to back up his claims with

Very well You consider a popular opinion as fact. I can accept that...what more is there to say?

I do? No offence pal but all I did was state that there is no science in your claims and then asked you to state what "facts" are present in your argument. How does that contradict anyone? Well?

That contradicts Ophiolites attempts...The consideration that you're assessing the thread as to lending to nothing scientific and yet he's argueing the scientifi validity offered...If you were correct in perception then his arguement would bare some similarity...It doesn't

That lends to two possibilities...

One: You're not thinking alike (which is apparent)
Two: That you're refusing to acknowledge the process that Ophilolite has acknowledge and is proceeding to make contention with.

I consider that both possibilities are the truth...

Sorry am I getting to you?

Not all. I find debate stimulating and character analysis equally revealing.

It's just usually when someone is getting to someone else they start with personal insults.

I recongnize that you are insulted..but the comment was merely observational.

Am I getting to you? Is the thought of me burning a hole in your underpants? Why go through a discussion like this?

Your'e making me smile actually. I feel more relaxed on these issues and confident in matters concerning my character or in this case your character. Analysis is simple. Critical thought challenges my perception and any an all test I find...some portion of anxiety.

It's like the fifth time now I have seen you personally attack other people where it's not needed. Might I ask why you do that?

I don't think so...but I'm more than capable of the Act..

Of course if that's the road you'd like to go down then please pm me. I will just make mention that you'll be up way past your bedtime and will eventually need to pay someone like me to fix the damage I do to your ego.

I assure you...my mental fortitude could withstand whatever clever broadsides you consider you significants.

I will concede that people have a different level of sensibility. As such I will ask you to kindly point out exactly where I slandered you.

Specificly you and Skinwalker imply that I've not address the point of the thread..therefore in violation...it is blatant slander as the person who created the thread.

Kindly explain what in genesis is in agreement with science. I know you've stated a couple of things that have been disputed but kindly restate them in numbered format briefly so I can point out the inherent flaws in your claims.

It has been summarized...you've ignored...How will it help you to restate the similarities again if you couldn't see it the first two times...NO...you need to ask questions along the lines of the information I've placed before you as Ophillite has done and is attempt to contest.

Further you need to address your own reasons for ignoring this information...otherwise the discussion will proceede much as it has...


Bizarre, back on page 1 you said you'd only accept scientific facts, not something that molds to scientific theory. You said it and yet here you are going on about scientific theory.. Is hypocrisy a major part of your life? However, kindly show how it matches scientific theories. Sources if you don't mind.[/QUOTE]

I also said I wouldn't be against considering scientific theory but on theory does not by virtue of established first make a propper comparison of other possibilties...we consider that they differ we considere that they have similarities but we don't not judge them solely from a theory....as a propper premise....

 

[kenworth]

havent read any of this yet but just a simple question and a yes or no answer will do.
in genesis is it said that the earth was created before the sun?

 

[Saquist]

No, kenworth.

One of the purposes of this thread is to meet alligations that the bible says the sun and Earth were created out of order. Forgive the current state of the thread I'm doing alot of defensive action.

We address the Hebrew meaning of the word "light"
research revealed to different words were used in the first day vs the modifier that was used on the fourth day of creation..

It shows that the bible doesn't say that the light was created at all but that the meaning of the word in Hebrew means "affording light" or allowing light..

In other words mah'ohr' means " And allowing light was created...allowing a light source to be revealed as though the clouds had lifted on a very very cloudy day...

It was addressed today...a few post up if you wish to see the details...(perhaps it's on the next page by now.)

And by the way...snakelord and Skinwalker...this too is a scientific revelation as too the meaning...and is a fact easily researched.

Scientificly the bible has made a powerful case that is not merely circumstantial in origin.

I may move on to the Fifth day but I wish to finishe up the fourth day and answer Skinwalker allegations of derivitive sources and details by the bible writers.
I"ll do so tomorrow...

 

[NDS]

Saquist, were Adam and Eve homosapiens or some form of Neanderthal or Cro Magnon?

 

[SnakeLord]

Very well You consider a popular opinion as fact. I can accept that...what more is there to say?

How did you come to that naive conclusion? I have stated that your posts are devoid of scientific facts. If you contend that they do indeed contain scientific facts then kindly state them here for the record.

The consideration that you're assessing the thread as to lending to nothing scientific and yet he's argueing the scientifi validity offered...If you were correct in perception then his arguement would bare some similarity...It doesn't

I can tell that English is not your native language, but you seem to be struggling more than one would hope. Once again: what scientific facts are present in your argument? Answer the damn question.

Two: That you're refusing to acknowledge the process that Ophilolite has acknowledge and is proceeding to make contention with.

Right now I am questioning you, not Ophi. What he says is of no relevance to what you and I say to each other, got it? Now.. once again: show me what scientific facts there are in any of your posts here.

Not all. I find debate stimulating and character analysis equally revealing.

And what qualifications pray tell do you have with regards to character analysis? Shall we compare?

Analysis is simple.

Really? Makes me wonder why I went through years of study on the matter. What have you done exactly?

I don't think so..

What you think is of little relevance to what the evidence shows. Need I point it out?

I assure you...my mental fortitude could withstand whatever clever broadsides you consider you significants.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Specificly you and Skinwalker imply that I've not address the point of the thread..therefore in violation...it is blatant slander as the person who created the thread.

Not really. I stated that there isn't any "science" in yout posts, and that is clearly evident. That's not slander, that's the way it is.

It has been summarized...you've ignored..

Nothing has been ignored. I still find no science in your posts.

I also said I wouldn't be against considering scientific theory but on theory does not by virtue of established first make a propper comparison of other possibilties...

Lies:

"The begining of the Tread explicitly stated that the facts would be considered in comparision to the Genesis account not theories or best guesses....That would be the fourth time I'd have to explain that to you."

Maybe you should explain it to yourself for a fourth time?

 

[Saquist]

A better question would be what do you find unscientific? Establish your grounds for contention with a definition.
We'll proceede from there...common ground if you will...

 

[SnakeLord]

A better question would be... Why can't you answer my questions first?

attmpting to prove that the Bible doesn't coincide with current Scientfic Theory when we all know this already.

Another one of your quotes showing that we all 'already know that the bible doesn't coincide with scientific theory". If that's the case, what science exactly is in your claims?

 

[Saquist]

I can't help you if you don't show some cooperation.

 

[SkinWalker]

How does it establish anything other than before.
How does it establish a human source?

Truly you aren't a stupid person, so I'm assuming then that you refuse to think the issue through critically because you have a conclusion to which you seek only those "facts" which support it whilst ignoring any that do not. If biblical mythology has origins in other texts, texts which include a pantheon of gods which partake in a host of magical, superstitious, and completely paranormal activities that range from creating people from mudbricks, splitting each other in half (Tiamat) to create the sky and the earth, and so on, then we are left to conclude: 1) biblical accounts are written after earlier texts; 2) earlier texts are considered by all to be myth; 3) biblical accounts include clear and obvious portions of these earlier texts; 4) biblical accounts are based on myth; 5) biblical accounts are myth.

If we look back through the thread one would see alot of heckling and a pervassive build up of snide and stupid remarks.

This often occurs when woo-woo's, cranks, and proponents of pseudoscientific notions decide to post their wacky claims in science boards. Sorry. If you can't deal with the ridicule, stick to actual science instead of pseudoscience or don't post wacky claims.

You've been doing your homework SkinWalker but you haven't gone deep enough. Ther eason some historians believe in a two fold authorships is completely incredulous.

Not in any way you've demonstrated. There are a hundreds if not thousands of theologians, historians, and epigraphers that have made a very good case for it. Among the best works that make the point in a very salient and yet to be successfully refuted manner are The Hidden Book in the Bible, by Richard Friedman and The Book of J, by Harold Bloom. And it isn't that I've "done my homework" so much as I've participated in higher education.

Your insistence that the notion "is completely incredulous" is hardly a refutation of their scholarship. Nor is it convincing in any way to anyone that didn't begin reading Genesis already with a conclusion/delusion that it was literal truth. Such a critical mind is able to see the literary devices used in Genesis and other books and pick out where the "J" the "P" and the "E" sources pick up and leave off with relative ease once one knows what to look for. The ignorant and the undereducated of course may have some difficulty with it.

The alternating use of God's title in Genesis is a non sequitor.

It might not follow if that were the only motif present. It isn't. The actual literary style changes as well as the details which present inconsistencies. The order of creation from the "E" to the "J" sources, for instance. There are many reasons why it completely follows that there are different authors of Genesis and other books, consistently and predictably "J," "E," and "P." Your insistence that it is a non sequitur doesn't make it so. Misspelling the fallacy doesn't help either.

The Mesopotamian myths I'll address later with a host of supporting evidence. Your claim on this is old and debunked long ago and is considered misinformation for the lack of proof that they expected to be revealed.

Wonderful. Finally you'll show us evidence. Until now its been naught but pseudoscience: your claiming that things in Genesis are "scientifically sound" just because you can make some vague and non-specific correlations.

My goal is teach and preach as a christian. Those goals are one in the same. The point of this thread is to show the scientific relevancy of the Genesis account. Which I have done.

My goal is to debunk bullshit. Which *I* have done. The point of this thread was clearly for you to justify your pseudoscientific opinions and deluded beliefs of Christian fundamentalism. In your mind, you've shown us all the "scientific relevancy" to your delusions, but not a single salient point was made with regard to Genesis and science on your part. Perhaps I overlooked it, however, so I'm more than willing to be rebuffed if you'd be so kind as to summarize your "scientifically relevant" points in one post. Obviously, after reading my reply below, the following bits are excluded.

The process of creation followed a logical and scientific progress up to this point in day four.

I'm sorry. Where did you demonstrate this? Not a single post you've made has shown this to be true.

The bible is the only creation story that tells of the creation of the universe.

Really? Have you read them all? How many creation stories will I need list that show the creation of the universe then the earth, in that order, before you recant or revise your wild claim? Please answer this one even if you ignore the rest of my post.

That is scientificly sound.

You're kidding, right? Because the authors of Genesis figured out that the universe must have existed first then the earth, this adds something "scientific" to your claims? This is a clear example of pseudoscience where one uses "science" and "scientific notions" to support complete and utter nonsense. Moreover, the Genesis account clearly creates the universe after the Earth. The stars and the sun follow the creation of the Earth and all the plants. The authors of Genesis are easily forgiven in their ignorance since science was still very much a process in its infancy.

The creation of light first. And an expanse of time (undefined) that the Earth existed before it came to first day to be molded by God's purposes...possibily billions of years

That is scientificly sound.

So you're saying its "scientifically sound" for light to exist prior to stars? As I said, we can easily forgive the authors of Genesis. You, however, remain completely unforgiven in your ignorance and misapplied education.

Light present for plant life and the revealing of Sun and the moon from amidst a cloud layer or heavy expanse. Propper and scientific description especial after one looks deeper into the Hebrew...

If you're calling this science, I'm calling you pseudoscientific. You pretend to be science, and your facade is a weak one.

I told you before...moderate or participate in a meaningfull discussion but thus far you haven't been doing your moderating task on this thread.

Oh, trust me. I'm leaving this one open. You deserve every bit of ridicule, sarcasm, and criticism you get. I'll delete or give infraction to anyone that goes so far as to use insults that cannot be qualified or which are profane, but if you get called "deluded" or "ignorant" (which I have done), then you've earned it. These are qualifiable and quantifiable descriptions that, while may seem offensive to you, are accurate.

 

[SkinWalker]

I can't help you if you don't show some cooperation.

You can't help because there are no scientific facts presented in any of your posts.

Your failure to list them demonstrates this.

Now, lets move on and hope that Saquist will, at some point, adhere to his promise in the OP and show us some. Which he admits through omission of answering requests that he has not done to date.

Glad to have cleared that up.

Moderator's Note: For those just joining the thread, Saquist has yet to produce any scientifically facts in support of his claim that Genesis has "scientific relevance." We are hopeful that he will. In the mean time, please review one of my earlier posts in this thread for genuine scientific relevance, which can only truly come in the form of anthropological, psychological, and sociological contexts, including epigraphical.