102 replies to this topic

[lionheart209]

http://www.answersin...a/ISD/javor.asp

Hi everyone,

Wanted to share this article with you.



thanX
Louie Buren <><

[Wally]

Nice article, Louie. But since the author believes what the Bible has to say, his reasons don't matter. He can't possibly be a 'real' scientist. I can't wait to read the refutations that will doubtless be advanced in this thread.

Wow! You’re good.

Looks like the same old irreducible complexity (already debunked numerous times) with a dash of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Actually, he may be an otherwise good scientist.

[OC1]

from the link:

So let us look at the world from our modern perspective, and ask whether it is reasonable to suppose that it came into being in six days.

The author makes some vague statements about cycles, dynamic equilibrium, and his own personal incredulity about some things. But how exactly does a "six day creation" follow from any of that?

How does a world created in 6 days look different from a world created in 90 days, or a million years?

[Wally]

Using Latin to camoflage calling someone, or an argument, ignorant is not acceptable.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" is a logical fallacy describing an augment claiming we (as in all of humanity) are incapable of understanding something. It was not meant to be an insult to the good Doctor, just a description of his logical position.

[Wally]

"A good scientist" being defined how? Perhaps as one who does not rock the evolutionary boat?

No that’s not what I meant. Skepticism of an idea is a necessary element of good science. It forces the proponents of an idea to more closely examine their facts and logic. The best example of this was Einstein’s reluctance of accepting quantum physics. He spent the last half of his life trying to disprove it, yet the computer sitting in front of you is proof that it is a valid theory, even though one of the most brilliant minds of all times didn’t like it.

[Wally]

But yet I hear that some of his brillant ideas are now in question. And if most end up on the wayside, I don't think science will consider him brillant anymore. Just a stepping stone to find their version of truth and reality.

And if he were alive right now, he’d probably be the first to agree with you. He claimed to have only had one original idea in his life (I can’t remember which it was). But that’s the way science works, you do the best you can then someone else follows you and refines your work. Sometimes it’s completely overturned.

[Wally]

And changing God's word through personal interpitations, called translations, has done more harm to the original and it's meaning. Even to the point it mocks God. And is the reason I stick with an older version KJV. Because sometimes, the old stuff has more truth, and changing it, does more harm.

No offence, but how did this discussion morph into a critique of the various translations of the Bible (which I admit to being completely unqualified to judge)? Just for the record, I was talking about human scientific endeavor, not Holy Scripture.

[shepherdmoon]

Nice article, Louie. But since the author believes what the Bible has to say, his reasons don't matter. He can't possibly be a 'real' scientist. I can't wait to read the refutations that will doubtless be advanced in this thread.

So if a an atheist thinks the earth evolved,we would not listen to him because he is an atheist.We would by your reasoning.

[Raelian1]

http://www.answersin...a/ISD/javor.asp

Hi everyone,

Wanted to share this article with you.
thanX
Louie Buren <><

Actualy, that part about six days was grossly misinterpreted (as well as a lot of other remarks in the Bible). The original Bible doesn't mention God but Elohim which means "Those that came from the sky". They created all life on Earth, not the universe and Earth. The six days mentioned weren't days but periods. These periods represent about 1000 to 2000 years each. These periods are separated by the varying complexity of the organisms created (plant or animal). I'm sure you asking how these scientists lived so long given that I told you the range of the periods. They can extend their life to 700 to 1200 years with a surgical implant. But that doesn't explain how they lived through each period. Also, they can clone themselves a new body and transfer their memories and personalities into this new body and that's how they lasted so long to create all these lifeforms (including us).

[RockerforChrist14]

Man, that guy is just a clown. I'm glad he's banned. Lol. His ideas are somewhat amusing, though they are completely offtopic.

[evolution_false]

Actualy, that part about six days was grossly misinterpreted (as well as a lot of other remarks in the Bible). The original Bible doesn't mention God but Elohim which means "Those that came from the sky". They created all life on Earth, not the universe and Earth. The six days mentioned weren't days but periods. These periods represent about 1000 to 2000 years each. These periods are separated by the varying complexity of the organisms created (plant or animal). I'm sure you asking how these scientists lived so long given that I told you the range of the periods. They can extend their life to 700 to 1200 years with a surgical implant. But that doesn't explain how they lived through each period. Also, they can clone themselves a new body and transfer their memories and personalities into this new body and that's how they lasted so long to create all these lifeforms (including us).

I mean no offense, but seriously, do you really belive in what you say? Or are you just joking around?

[RockerforChrist14]

That's why he's banned. He was just here to annoy people I think.

[Mikel Sevrel]

Well, I think to follow an accurate account of Genesis 1 it would indicate that the six days of creation cannot be 24 hour days and must, in some manner, be allegorical. That is not to say that creation did not occure, but it did not occur in the manner that modern people believe it; just look at Christ's parables to understand that something can both be true and not literal. There is also scientific facts which indicate that the creation account cannot be For example, the way that we measure time is based on the earth's rotation, and since the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, we can reasonably ascertain that the passage of time is not literal as we perceive it to be. Also, we must recognize that the ancient Hebrew/Egyptian mindset is much different than that of modern societies, and may call for a greater amount of interpretation than we traditionally give to literary works.

Also, life could not survive on the earth without the sun and the moon. This indicates to me, that the creation account cannot be taken as literal through the modern mindset of what is literal.