[_ Old Earth _] How God did it,... I'm all ears....

[cupid dave]

Its all in Genesis and can beunderstood as corresponding exactly to the very detailed explanations scienceoffers us today.

In the bracketed explanations of howscience and what genesis specifically states, you can see the one-to-onerelationship between the two descriptions:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning,(theFormative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or theDarkEnergy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created...(all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Timewhich consisted of Seven Stages:

1) The Inflation Era

2) The Quark Era

3) Hadron Era

4) Lepton Era

5) Nucleosynthesis Era

6) Opaque Era

7) Matter Era,...

in an enormous Einsteinian energytransformation,E = mC^2),...

... the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the SolarSystem) and the (accretion disk whichwas yet to congeal into a sphericalplanet) earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth waswithoutform, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void:(not yet valid as a sphere- i.e.; an accretion disk), and darkness:[choshek: obscurity] was upon the face (of the disk) of the deep:[tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of the thick ring].
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (thepan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym:presence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory thingsspinningcounter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])

Gen. 1:3 And God, (next,after the creation of the Heavens), said, Let there be light : andthere was light, (which had been delayed by 400 million years after the BigBang by a Cosmic Dark Age throughout all the universe).



Gen. 1:4 And (FatherNature,the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, saw the light,that itwas good: and (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfoldingReality), God, divided the light from the darkness (as the starsformed).

Gen. 1:5 And (FatherNature,the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, called the lightDay, and the darkness he called Night.

 

[Arch Angle]

Why does it has to be 6 days? anybody that knows anything knows time is not a "thing". It actually is not clear what time is at all. Time is achange in states. From condition A to condition B, if you will. If it happensregular enough, we use that as a "tick".

second. What is this"god never changes" notion. Is it particle based? It works if we use"natural law" based. God never changes because the laws we see seem not to change. They are the same now as they were 1*10^9 years ago. Yes, in this sense, the bible fits perfectly.

or, if we say "god is understandable and works inpredictable ways". Yes again, in that sense he never changes. In this light,the bible fits perfectly again.

this stuff is child's play. Why do we make it so dern confusing?

 

[Arch Angle]

oh right, I didn't asnwer the question.

It seems she did it through the workings of the universe he created.

 

[Stone-yarder]

For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

[Arch Angle]

exactly stone.

understand god, through god.

I like it.

 

[Arch Angle]

I just noticed stone. You didn't include "mind". You only included the "heart". You have 1/2 of the solution.

That 1/2? .... God did it.

Now think about how he did it?

How will he "heal" you?

1)through a knowable process?
2)"poof there it is"?

The answer is both ... "poof there is the knowable process". The bible.

 

[cupid dave]

oh right, I didn't asnwer the question.

It seems she did it through the workings of the universe he created.

...Cosmic Evolution...?

 

[Arch Angle]

I don't want to put idea's into people heads. They have to choose him as he is, or it isnot real.

List the knowable observations and process around you. What does god show you?
Use others and christ to help discern what the truthis. That means think, use your head and heart. Either, alone is not the total truth.

 

[cupid dave]

I don't want to put idea's into people heads. They have to choose him as he is, or it isnot real.

List the knowable observations and process around you. What does god show you?
Use others and christ to help discern what the truthis. That means think, use your head and heart. Either, alone is not the total truth.

I agree.

What is really happening now was like just before the Reformation, when the RCC lost half its fold to Protestantism largely because of sex scandals at the highest level of the Roman Catholic Church, the political force of the large sheep-like membership that was being used to silence new ideas, and of course, the dawning of the Scientific Method which unveiled the techniques which made Truth concrete and empirically observable to everyone.

The Pope could insist that "God said this or that," and the discussion was to end.

Galileo was the first to show that did no work anymore, but the seven major American Fundamentalist organized churches think it will be different for them.
They need to be told that, in 1998, the Pope accepted evolution as too conclusive a theory for the church to oppose.
He, no doubt, has written church documents from 1600 AD which tell the terrible effect on his church that the opposition to science had then.

Now, the RCC has a Jesuit, who we all know believes Genesis and evolution.




Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold,... (the golden spiritualinsights of the irrepressible idea of psychic Consciousness emerging fromscripture) ... tried in the fire... (of time),... that thou mayest berich... (in continued church leadership); and (re-interpret upon) white(yet unwritten, new pages), raiment,... (of revised books of yourevermore obvious misinterpretations), ...that thou mayest be clothed...(and protected in thine thinking with secularly acceptable scripturalconfirmations), ...and that the shame... (as visited in Geocentricismdoes not reoccur concerning magical Creationism, impossible literal world-widefloods, genealogies of individuals who lived inordinately long personal lifetimes, Sun and Moon and Stars absent from the Heavens while light shinesthrough the Cosmos, etc) ...of thy nakedness... (of your unsupportableintuitive irrationalities) ...do not appear... (and confront you ashappened before The Reformation); ...and anoint thineeyes...(awaken!)... with (the) eyesalve... (of reality!),...that thou mayest see... (socio-psychologically).

 

[Arch Angle]

One reason I believe also:

I listen to how many time we say "by chance" innon-believer's formation of life. Howmany times can you say that before it just doesn't make sense anymore. Yes, you may not like this, or that, type fgod. but come on.
Also, when someone makes a claim. They need evidence to support thatclaim. Atheist use the "no proofneeded for a null". That is fundamentallydifferent than claiming 'no god". If you are proving a null, you don't make a claim at all.

"there is no god", is a claim, I would needsomething for that. Again, that is differentthan stating that the "traits" of "your" do not seem tomatch observation. Like "poof theregoes the earth". The evidencesuggest that god did it threw evolution. Not that there is no-god.
you like bible lines:, pick a few for my post. they are in there.
I know. Because the holy spirit showed me my belief.

 

[cupid dave]

The evidencesuggest that god did it threw evolution. Not that there is no-god.

I know. Because the holy spirit showed me my belief.

Tht is exactly what I believe.

The chistian community is dishonest in opposing Evolution for many reasons.

The number one crime is that Genesis never says by whatmeans God created these sequential events and unfoldings which ARE exactly the same events that science in the same order describes.

How weird is that?
Science has actually come full circle and SUPPORTS the Bible, while the largest segment of Christianity now resists this confirmation, solely, ONLy, JUST because some man who started their denomination a century or more ago had no insight into the confirming factual matters we are discussing.

What I see is Faith in what those ancient church builders said about Genesis, NOT faith in The Truth.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

Tht is exactly what I believe.

The chistian community is dishonest in opposing Evolution for many reasons.

The number one crime is that Genesis never says by whatmeans God created these sequential events and unfoldings which ARE exactly the same events that science in the same order describes.

How weird is that?
Science has actually come full circle and SUPPORTS the Bible, while the largest segment of Christianity now resists this confirmation, solely, ONLy, JUST because some man who started their denomination a century or more ago had no insight into the confirming factual matters we are discussing.

What I see is Faith in what those ancient church builders said about Genesis, NOT faith in The Truth.

I think it's great that you can justify the science within your belief system, when one can do that, at least they can argue their opinion is not one born out of ignorance. But personally, I think it's easy to create parallels between a story and a fact whether or not these parallels actually exists. Many Muslims will argue that the Qur'an complements and is supported by science, but really they are creating the connection themselves.

It calls to mind the Texas sharpshooter fallacy - The fallacy gets its name from imagining a cowboy shooting at a barn. Over time, the side of the barn becomes riddled with holes. In some places there are lots of them, in others there are few. If the cowboy later paints a bullseye over a spot where his bullet holes are clustered together it looks like he is pretty good with a gun, but he isn't necessarily good with a gun. Two pieces of information that have no relationship to one another are called out for their similarities (the bullseye and the bullet holes / Genesis and The Big Bang), and that similarity is used for claiming the existence of a pattern.

 

[Arch Angle]

why we are making up stories.

How about he was aiming at a spot. You later walked over to see where he was aiming. And you drew a circle where you thought the area he was shooting at is?

or, he was sighting in his gun. Based on the observations he drew a circle where the rounds seemed to be going. Only later, he used the information to adjust his "story".

I would agree that he is not necessarily "good" with a gun. But the evidence might mean he is great with agun.

And using one "fairytale"to fight another "fairytale" is not a good approach I think.
A "made up" story is not appropriate as evidence. From either side of the isle.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

why we are making up stories.

How about he was aiming at a spot. You later walked over to see where he was aiming. And you drew a circle where you thought the area he was shooting at is?

or, he was sighting in his gun. Based on the observations he drew a circle where the rounds seemed to be going. Only later, he used the information to adjust his "story".

I would agree that he is not necessarily "good" with a gun. But the evidence might mean he is great with agun.

And using one "fairytale"to fight another "fairytale" is not a good approach I think.
A "made up" story is not appropriate as evidence. From either side of the isle.

I'm not stating that Genesis is a made up story, that is my personal belief, but it's not the point I'm making. Hypothetically, if Genesis were true, we would expect to see the similarities pointed out between the scientific evidence, and the story, however what I am saying is that these similarities are not, by themselves, evidence in favour of the stories truth, as we can only see these similarities by specifically looking for them, and by interpreting the scripture in such a way that it is made to fit. It must be taken into account that depending on how you interpret it, Genesis offers a completely different scenario than the one science explains.

 

[Arch Angle]

I see. So the first thing we are addressing is if genesis is computable with the observations of science? Is that right?

And while we are trying to be more precise, I think it is important to point out "science" does not say a thing. Scientist do. Science is a data collection process. "science" takes data and makes up stories to see how they align. I totally agree with you. They make up stories that align with direct observations as best they can. And we need to be real careful. "inflationary" theory is totally"made up" and has no observational evidence.

1) let there be light, the big bang.

Are you saying they are not close? Weather you believe in god or not is not the issue here for me or you, right. You stating that if Genesis true, we would see its statements align to science stories, to a degree.


2) People back then stated they thought people came from the dirt of the earth.

How is that against the data that science has collected? To me, for2000 years ago, the dust of the earth and the "primordial soup" of today,are pretty close. They did a great job.

so what evidence are you using to say they don't line up?

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

I see. So the first thing we are addressing is if genesis is computable with the observations of science? Is that right?

And while we are trying to be more precise, I think it is important to point out "science" does not say a thing. Scientist do. Science is a data collection process. "science" takes data and makes up stories to see how they align. I totally agree with you. They make up stories that align with direct observations as best they can. And we need to be real careful. "inflationary" theory is totally"made up" and has no observational evidence.

1) let there be light, the big bang.

Are you saying they are not close? Weather you believe in god or not is not the issue here for me or you, right. You stating that if Genesis true, we would see its statements align to observationsto a degree.


2) People back then stated they thought people came from the dirt of the earth.

How is that against the data that science has collected? To me, for2000 years ago, the dust of the earth and the "primordial soup" of today,are pretty close. They did a great job.

so what evidence are you using to say they don't line up?

Science doesn't have a predetermined conclusion it's trying to reach, be it God or otherwise. If one were trying to reach the predetermined conclusion that when God spoke light into the world, it was actually a metaphor for the big bang, sure, I guess I could see how one might reach that conclusion, but that's a big assumption. Why should I assume that? Why should I assume that God, the Christian God specifically, caused the big bang, and referred to it metaphorically, and vaguely, in the Old Testament? What about all the other creation myths? I could just as easily find similarities between any other creation myth and the current scientific theory? In reality there's a big difference between "Let there be light", and the the "big bang" (there was no actual bang, but rather a slow expansion).

The same applies when you talk about people coming from the dirt of the earth. It's easy to find similarities when you're using a predetermined conclusion you're not willing to deviate from. The aborigines of Australia believed that Baiame, the "maker of things", brought their ancestors from beneath the Earth and sea, where they lied in eternal slumber. The ancestors wandered over the land and, soon became parts of interesting adventures. That sounds an awful lot like evolution doesn't it? Or does it sound like I'm creating similarities where non really exist?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You approach the scientific evidence from a position of Faith in God, and I think it's great that at least this can be justified! But for myself, I don't have a position of Faith within Christianity, and therefore I don't see the similarities that might appear obvious to you.

 

[Sparkey]

Science doesn't have a predetermined conclusion it's trying to reach, be it God or otherwise.

I agree with you there. Well, I would agree that it sounds like you believe what you're saying even as much as I believe what I'm saying. I'm also sure that this is true for many. The "official party line" for both sides is true for some, maybe even most. But there are also others (on both sides) that say one thing and think and act different than their spoken "idealized" position. That, to me, is more grievous when it (hypocrisy) happens with those who claim moral integrity in addition to intellectual integrity.

I do appreciate your position here, didn't want to give the wrong impression. Also pretty sure you can think of people on both sides of the issue that fit well toward the extremes. There's more than a couple on this forum, in fact.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

I agree with you there. Well, I would agree that it sounds like you believe what you're saying even as much as I believe what I'm saying. I'm also sure that this is true for many. The "official party line" for both sides is true for some, maybe even most. But there are also others (on both sides) that say one thing and think and act different than their spoken "idealized" position. That, to me, is more grievous when it (hypocrisy) happens with those who claim moral integrity in addition to intellectual integrity.

I do appreciate your position here, didn't want to give the wrong impression. Also pretty sure you can think of people on both sides of the issue that fit well toward the extremes. There's more than a couple on this forum, in fact.

Thanks. Every man's position is one born out of their own personal experience, even the extremists (both religious and non). I claim no higher integrity, be it moral, intellectual or otherwise, and endeavour to understand other people's positions beyond my own. Whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant, every position originated for one reason or another, and is almost always justified by the experience of the individual in said position.

 

[Arch Angle]

Science doesn't have a predetermined conclusion it's trying to reach, be it God or otherwise. If one were trying to reach the predetermined conclusion that when God spoke light into the world, it was actually a metaphor for the big bang, sure, I guess I could see how one might reach that conclusion, but that's a big assumption. Why should I assume that? Why should I assume that God, the Christian God specifically, caused the big bang, and referred to it metaphorically, and vaguely, in the Old Testament? What about all the other creation myths? I could just as easily find similarities between any other creation myth and the current scientific theory? In reality there's a big difference between "Let there be light", and the the "big bang" (there was no actual bang, but rather a slow expansion).

The same applies when you talk about people coming from the dirt of the earth. It's easy to find similarities when you're using a predetermined conclusion you're not willing to deviate from. The aborigines of Australia believed that Baiame, the "maker of things", brought their ancestors from beneath the Earth and sea, where they lied in eternal slumber. The ancestors wandered over the land and, soon became parts of interesting adventures. That sounds an awful lot like evolution doesn't it? Or does it sound like I'm creating similarities where non really exist?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You approach the scientific evidence from a position of Faith in God, and I think it's great that at least this can be justified! But for myself, I don't have a position of Faith within Christianity, and therefore I don't see the similarities that might appear obvious to you.

this is a different issue. And again, I think it is important that you keep science separate from scientist.

And I think you do have a end game. That being no Christian god. Which, like you, is of little concern to me. either way.

Lets us get back to the first issue. You made a claim. and we are testing the validity of that claim.

You claimed that if genesis was true it would match some ofthe conclusions that scientist have.

I said it does. bigbang and "let there be light", and "people came from the dust ofearth as compared to the "soup". And, they did it some 6000 years ago.

what is your evidence that it does not match scientist conclusions.

as a point of fact. I thinkthe people that wrote genesis were the scientist of their day. And I think theydid a good job. incomplete and out oforder. But they did ok. Weather you believe in god or not doesnt matter to me.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

this is a different issue. And again, I think it is important that you keep science separate from scientist.

And I think you do have a end game. That being no Christian god. Which, like you, is of little concern to me. either way.

Lets us get back to the first issue. You made a claim. and we are testing the validity of that claim.

You claimed that if genesis was true it would match some ofthe conclusions that scientist have.

I said it does. bigbang and "let there be light", and "people came from the dust ofearth as compared to the "soup". And, they did it some 6000 years ago.

what is your evidence that it does not match scientist conclusions.

I have no end game, I assure you. I'm just stating my position, and I never said that my position was absolute. Also, I didn't make a claim, I think you misunderstood, or I didn't explain myself very well. Yes, I said that if Genesis was true it would match some of the conclusions that scientist have made (obviously), but what I was trying to say is that just because one can find similarities between two separate statements, is not proof for the validity of the statement.

A = Christian Creation
X = Islam Creation
Y = Buddhist Creation
B = Scientists Theories

We know that A≠X≠Y
If we know that A=B, we expect that A would share some similarities with B
However, if all we know is that A,X and Y share some similarities with B, we don't conclude that A=B

To use a previously used example, yes, if one is looking he can see some parallels between God creating light, and the big bang. If we assume that God is the truth here, this does not prove the big bang. Equally so, if we assume that the big bang is the truth here, it does not prove that God created light. (Edit: It should be noted that it doesn't disprove it either)

I acknowledge that one can see these similarities, and admit I can see them too if I'm looking for them, but such similarities could be found in just about anything, and thus I do not think it viable proof. For someone in a different position, perhaps it is a viable proof, and that's fine, I won't argue what they believe, but see no problem in stating that I believe different.