In the beginning Elohim/Theos/God created the heavens and the earth.
If we can't get past this very first verse, we can't claim legitimacy for another mote of biblical writing.
Do the Elohim exist ...?
Did they do the creating ...?
When was the beginning ...?
What are the heavens and the earth ...?
Who wrote that verse ...?
Can we back ANY of Gen 1:1 with anything other than faith and quotations from the same writings ...?
Because if we can't, we have to be honest and admit it.
And nit-picking over the finer details of what the questions may mean, or critiquing science, are just diversionary tactics.
Genesis 1:1
Moderator: Moderators
Post #51
Goat wrote:You are assuming that photosynthesis always produces oxygen. that is an error.
I am not assuming anything, nor is it "incorrect" that photosynthesis always produces oxygen. This is supported by the definition of photosynthesis and just about everybodyThus, for photosynthesis to occur a plant must:
*Take in "water" through its roots and transport it to the leaves.
*The "carbon dioxide" that is breathed out from the use of oxygen into the air goes into the leaves through tiny pores and is spread to the cells that contain chlorophyll in the inside layer of the leaf.
*Hydrogen is then used with the carbon dioxide to create the "food for the plants."
*Sunlight or light energy is used to break down the water in the plant into oxygen, which the plant gives off. This process is essential to the plant.
So, common sense tells us that if any of the about ingredients or processes are not available, photosynthesis will not occur. But, it is a false statement to imply that if photosynthesis "does" occur that oxygen won't be produced.
Goat wrote:You are also confusing cause and effect.. because the stars and planets effect the environment,, which effect biology.
Sorry, I am not confused about cause and effect. However, sunlight alone will not allow photosynthesis to occur. So, sunlight is only a part of the equation and if we have an equation there is design. This cannot naturally occur by chance
Yet, there is the reality that too much or too little oxygen can be harmful and have an adverse effect on life. This also shows design. NASA's studies have concluded that too much oxygen causes: inflammation of the lungs, respiratory disturbances, heart problems, blindness and loss of consciousness. Where, too little oxygen induces: sleepiness, headache, inability to perform simple tasks and loss of consciousness. This clearly shows that the oxygen we breathe is not a result of cause and effect, but design
Goat wrote:All evidence points to this being a false claim... since small changed accumulate, and become larger changes. That means an organism can change over successive generations to be something other than what it's ancestor was..
The reality for the "kind of evidence" you are suggesting is only speculative and uses assumptions to arrive at the conclusion, which is unfortunately taught to impressible minds in most school systems, where the alternative is not. I totally disagree with these types of assertions and tactics. It's like science fiction on steroids and this approach should not be accepted, under any circumstances.
Therefore, the above comments and responses makes it obvious that our interaction has become unproductive and should end, unless something more realistic and provable can be introduced.
-
brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6050
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6925 times
- Been thanked: 3244 times
Post #52
[Replying to post 51 by FWI]
No it doesn't. It just means that the life we are familiar with would not have evolved under those adverse conditions. Organisms evolve in response to changes in the environment they inhabit. When they are not able to survive dramatic changes, they die out and become extinct. About 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. Great designs!Yet, there is the reality that too much or too little oxygen can be harmful and have an adverse effect on life. This also shows design.
Post #53
Self-aggrandisement is a fine human trait. We can happily be aware of millions of dead worlds around us, of the chemistry of stars and their lives, and we can see that when some of us live near terrestrial flaws, such as erupting volcanoes, we don't have protection and exhibit our worthlessness. We are fortunate children of chance; how many trials it took for the elements to turn in our favour may be uncountable, but eternity has long pockets.Guy Threepwood wrote:
And so he may come to realize that even if he is temporary, the world probably was designed with his existence in mind, however fleeting
Or as the finest creature in all the univverse we can postulate the existence of a finer being outside the universe, but conveniently inside it when it comes to making creative tales about him. God is man's comfort blanket when order becomes chaos and life becomes death. Genesis is an illustration that man is in his infancy and the Bible God is man's mental toy. If intelligence is somehow involved in the mess of debris that is our universe, it doesn't belong to some man-like Yahweh.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #54
And this is the logical fallacy known as 'argument from personal incredulity'. There are vast numbers of papers in scientific journals that specifically address these issues. That is hand waved away as 'only speculative', when it's not. Those papers are backed up with experiments and data.FWI wrote:Goat wrote:You are assuming that photosynthesis always produces oxygen. that is an error.
I am not assuming anything, nor is it "incorrect" that photosynthesis always produces oxygen. This is supported by the definition of photosynthesis and just about everybodyThus, for photosynthesis to occur a plant must:
*Take in "water" through its roots and transport it to the leaves.
*The "carbon dioxide" that is breathed out from the use of oxygen into the air goes into the leaves through tiny pores and is spread to the cells that contain chlorophyll in the inside layer of the leaf.
*Hydrogen is then used with the carbon dioxide to create the "food for the plants."
*Sunlight or light energy is used to break down the water in the plant into oxygen, which the plant gives off. This process is essential to the plant.
So, common sense tells us that if any of the about ingredients or processes are not available, photosynthesis will not occur. But, it is a false statement to imply that if photosynthesis "does" occur that oxygen won't be produced.
Goat wrote:You are also confusing cause and effect.. because the stars and planets effect the environment,, which effect biology.
Sorry, I am not confused about cause and effect. However, sunlight alone will not allow photosynthesis to occur. So, sunlight is only a part of the equation and if we have an equation there is design. This cannot naturally occur by chance
Yet, there is the reality that too much or too little oxygen can be harmful and have an adverse effect on life. This also shows design. NASA's studies have concluded that too much oxygen causes: inflammation of the lungs, respiratory disturbances, heart problems, blindness and loss of consciousness. Where, too little oxygen induces: sleepiness, headache, inability to perform simple tasks and loss of consciousness. This clearly shows that the oxygen we breathe is not a result of cause and effect, but design
Goat wrote:All evidence points to this being a false claim... since small changed accumulate, and become larger changes. That means an organism can change over successive generations to be something other than what it's ancestor was..
The reality for the "kind of evidence" you are suggesting is only speculative and uses assumptions to arrive at the conclusion, which is unfortunately taught to impressible minds in most school systems, where the alternative is not. I totally disagree with these types of assertions and tactics. It's like science fiction on steroids and this approach should not be accepted, under any circumstances.
Therefore, the above comments and responses makes it obvious that our interaction has become unproductive and should end, unless something more realistic and provable can be introduced.
Can you show the equivalent reliability for Genesis 1:1?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16489
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Post #55
[Replying to post 53 by marco]
Truly it can be observed that the Abrahamic GOD is a man-crafted effigy but behind the mask beats a true heart thumping its rhythm into life-forms all uniquely placed upon the one anomaly the universe has to show for itself.
Perhaps in ones bravado one can turn ones back on oneself and stare longing into the abyss of infinite death, discarding the comforting blanket of wishful thinking for the cold comfort of such a reality...if only...but one never quite knows...
The bible GOD failed to grow up alongside humans growth from infancy into toddlership, but since one is so close to the other, it is barely noticeable so perhaps the reality is that we have yet to collectively notice GOD at all and will not until we have grown beyond our present state, or even that of the teens, or young adult, into the maturity where perhaps - in those twilight times - we will finally collectively catch up with GOD?
Or...perhaps one cannot happen without the other...and the longing for the deep dark abyss is actually the less scary choice to be grasping and clinging to...a comforting blanket of itself...a GOD to the Godless...the final curtain on the acts of those who cannot forgive life for having lived them into existence.
None have publicly lasted the distance or provided a more stable reflection of the complex spectrum exhibited in natural circumstance.Or as the finest creature in all the univverse we can postulate the existence of a finer being outside the universe, but conveniently inside it when it comes to making creative tales about him. God is man's comfort blanket when order becomes chaos and life becomes death. Genesis is an illustration that man is in his infancy and the Bible God is man's mental toy. If intelligence is somehow involved in the mess of debris that is our universe, it doesn't belong to some man-like Yahweh.
Truly it can be observed that the Abrahamic GOD is a man-crafted effigy but behind the mask beats a true heart thumping its rhythm into life-forms all uniquely placed upon the one anomaly the universe has to show for itself.
Perhaps in ones bravado one can turn ones back on oneself and stare longing into the abyss of infinite death, discarding the comforting blanket of wishful thinking for the cold comfort of such a reality...if only...but one never quite knows...
The bible GOD failed to grow up alongside humans growth from infancy into toddlership, but since one is so close to the other, it is barely noticeable so perhaps the reality is that we have yet to collectively notice GOD at all and will not until we have grown beyond our present state, or even that of the teens, or young adult, into the maturity where perhaps - in those twilight times - we will finally collectively catch up with GOD?
Or...perhaps one cannot happen without the other...and the longing for the deep dark abyss is actually the less scary choice to be grasping and clinging to...a comforting blanket of itself...a GOD to the Godless...the final curtain on the acts of those who cannot forgive life for having lived them into existence.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2324
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 46 times
- Contact:
Post #56
The question should not be when was the beginning but what was in the beginning.
If the universe did have a beginning like pretty much all Physicist believe it did. Then there was no such thing as the space we live in. The four fundamental forced that govern everything we see in this universe did not exist because they are dependent on space.
So there had to be a fifth force to create this universe. And there are only two choices for the character of that fifth force.
1. Naturalistic: Sean Carroll atheist cosmologist, proposes that our universe along with the others in the multiverse that we live in. He proposes that there was an original universe that was eternal, all-powerful (he would not say all-powerful but this universe would be have to able to exist into eternity past and create an infinite number of universes without losing any energy. That would be all-powerful) and infinite in size. (problem with this one they have found a way to make us real we are imaginary)
2. Theistic: God who exist outside the universes which would also have to be eternal, all-powerful and infinite in size.
Both theories have to believe in something outside our own universe to create this universe. One works the other doesn't
If the universe did have a beginning like pretty much all Physicist believe it did. Then there was no such thing as the space we live in. The four fundamental forced that govern everything we see in this universe did not exist because they are dependent on space.
So there had to be a fifth force to create this universe. And there are only two choices for the character of that fifth force.
1. Naturalistic: Sean Carroll atheist cosmologist, proposes that our universe along with the others in the multiverse that we live in. He proposes that there was an original universe that was eternal, all-powerful (he would not say all-powerful but this universe would be have to able to exist into eternity past and create an infinite number of universes without losing any energy. That would be all-powerful) and infinite in size. (problem with this one they have found a way to make us real we are imaginary)
2. Theistic: God who exist outside the universes which would also have to be eternal, all-powerful and infinite in size.
Both theories have to believe in something outside our own universe to create this universe. One works the other doesn't
Post #57
[Replying to brunumb]
Yes, you are correctOur universe is a marvel of the Great Designer! Yet, there are consequences for ignoring the rules. However, the idea that you have accepted a conclusion, without any real evidence, as related to oxygen, is quite telling.
Oxygen played a key role in the existence of complex organisms according to a new research published in BMC Evolutionary Biology. The study shows that the complexity of life forms increased earlier than was thought, and in parallel with the availability of oxygen as an energy source.
So, to "down-play" the importance of the "balance of oxygen," which is required for complex life forms is actually going against your own belief system. There is no clear-cut evidence that the "cause" of global extinctions was the fluctuation of oxygen, it was only its "effect."
Therefore, when the Designer created the universe, He only brought to be the necessary requirements. The rest was to be accomplished by those the Designer created or celestial beings (angels), who were given life inherent. These were the ones who were to create life according to the instructions given them, which would result in many different life forms coming to be. This is where the differences between planetary systems and life forms come into play.
Example: Modern evolutionists claim that the oldest "planetary system" has existed for about 14 billion years. However, when it comes to physical life, individual life spans can last from only hours to about 150 years, with very few exceptions.
So, it is clear that physical life was "intended" to have a limit, where the Designer's created beings, did not have the ability to give life inherent, as they processed.
Hence, when it comes to an extinction event, it comes to be, because the life created (by some) was not in-line with the instructions given by the Designer, such as dinosaurs! Therefore, all that existed was destroyed and a new start was required. But, there came a point when the Designer took away the ability to create life in our solar system altogether, because the celestial beings assigned to it, refused to follow the rulesAt this point, our solar system was where Genesis 1:2 and beyond, takes us.
brunumb wrote:No it doesn't. It just means that the life we are familiar with would not have evolved under those adverse conditions. Organisms evolve in response to changes in the environment they inhabit. When they are not able to survive dramatic changes, they die out and become extinct. About 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. Great designs!
Yes, you are correctOur universe is a marvel of the Great Designer! Yet, there are consequences for ignoring the rules. However, the idea that you have accepted a conclusion, without any real evidence, as related to oxygen, is quite telling.
Oxygen played a key role in the existence of complex organisms according to a new research published in BMC Evolutionary Biology. The study shows that the complexity of life forms increased earlier than was thought, and in parallel with the availability of oxygen as an energy source.
So, to "down-play" the importance of the "balance of oxygen," which is required for complex life forms is actually going against your own belief system. There is no clear-cut evidence that the "cause" of global extinctions was the fluctuation of oxygen, it was only its "effect."
Therefore, when the Designer created the universe, He only brought to be the necessary requirements. The rest was to be accomplished by those the Designer created or celestial beings (angels), who were given life inherent. These were the ones who were to create life according to the instructions given them, which would result in many different life forms coming to be. This is where the differences between planetary systems and life forms come into play.
Example: Modern evolutionists claim that the oldest "planetary system" has existed for about 14 billion years. However, when it comes to physical life, individual life spans can last from only hours to about 150 years, with very few exceptions.
So, it is clear that physical life was "intended" to have a limit, where the Designer's created beings, did not have the ability to give life inherent, as they processed.
Hence, when it comes to an extinction event, it comes to be, because the life created (by some) was not in-line with the instructions given by the Designer, such as dinosaurs! Therefore, all that existed was destroyed and a new start was required. But, there came a point when the Designer took away the ability to create life in our solar system altogether, because the celestial beings assigned to it, refused to follow the rulesAt this point, our solar system was where Genesis 1:2 and beyond, takes us.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2324
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 46 times
- Contact:
Post #58
[Replying to post 53 by marco]
There is no observation evidence of this chance you are speaking. In absence of observational evidence you are speaking of faith not chance. Chance does not have eternity. Eternity does not equate into possibility it equates into our existence not real.We are fortunate children of chance; how many trials it took for the elements to turn in our favour may be uncountable, but eternity has long pockets.
All theories point to a force outside our universe. The only difference would be the character of the force and what theory says would be the effect of that force. The only difference is that one force brings about the universe we live in the other brings about a universe in which everything you see is not real. So the tales of make believe do not come form theist but from the one that tries to make nothing create something.we can postulate the existence of a finer being outside the universe, but conveniently inside it when it comes to making creative tales about him.
Intelligence has to be involve in the creation of our universe. There is no naturalistic theory that yields a universe in which we live. Yahweh is not a choice it is a necessity to have a universe like the one in which we live.If intelligence is somehow involved in the mess of debris that is our universe, it doesn't belong to some man-like Yahweh.
-
brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6050
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6925 times
- Been thanked: 3244 times
Post #59
[Replying to post 57 by FWI]
I will quote your own words from the same post in response:Therefore, when the Designer created the universe, He only brought to be the necessary requirements. The rest was to be accomplished by those the Designer created or celestial beings (angels), who were given life inherent. These were the ones who were to create life according to the instructions given them, which would result in many different life forms coming to be. This is where the differences between planetary systems and life forms come into play.
The same applies to the rest of your post.However, the idea that you have accepted a conclusion, without any real evidence, as related to oxygen, is quite telling.
-
brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6050
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6925 times
- Been thanked: 3244 times
Post #60
[Replying to post 58 by EarthScienceguy]
The universe we live in makes no sense with Yahweh. There is absolutely no evidence for Yahweh to boot.Yahweh is not a choice it is a necessity to have a universe like the one in which we live.
