Evolution/Creation (translate, Orthodox, bishop, Illinois)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Everliving

Back to evolution. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth", these are the first words of man's most sacred book. It does not set a time limit. The heavens are said to be over 15 billion years old, the Earth is 4.5 billion years in age. The bible though not a scientific textbook, if Devine should agree with present day scientific knowledge. The bible states the Earth is a sphere which hangs on nothing in the midst of an expanding universe. Which implies there is a force still unknown to man, that is stretching the heavens. This at a time thousand of years ago when it was thought, the Earth sat on the back of a great tortes.

Someone else want to take this repetition of debunked apologetics for Genesis? I did my quota.

Originally Posted by Matadora

The Bible makes no such claim that the Earth is a sphere which hangs on nothing in the midst of an expanding Universe.

It uses the word circle and a circle is no more a sphere in Scripture than it is in geometry.

In fact the Bible makes no mention of anything related to the Universe expanding and in fact does not talk much about what we know as the Universe.

Again you have a misconception about Evolution.

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.

CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

Well taken. It's worth noting that the Hebrew (chwug) for 'circle' is a root that appears elsewhere in the context of inscribing a circle with compasses. This is certainly a flat disc, not a sphere. And there is a different Hebrew term 'dwr' that refers to a ball -shape. If that was used to refer to the 'circle of the earth' I would accept knowledge of a globular earth in the Bible. As it is, a flat circle with dome over it is what the Bible tells us we got. It is incorrect.

So it is not a science book. Good. Then let the believers stop using it to contest science that is deemed to be contradicting it.

P.s kudos for recognizing that evolutionists do look at the origins of life and are constantly working on it. So I have never been too happy about this 'Abiogenesis is nothing to do with evolution' response, even though strictly correct - it is about the way it developed, not about how it started.

I certainly see in the discussion about chemical evolution and the role of thermodynamics is selecting for an evolutionary bias towards complexity as very much related to evolution theory. But it is not validated as natural selection through mutation is.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Everliving

This at a time thousand of years ago when it was thought, the Earth sat on the back of a great tortes.

Not at all. Earth being spherical has always been the prevailing view once societies developed to the point where it could feed people who pondered such matters and wrote down their thinking.

[Rotagivan]

Originally Posted by Matadora

One simple question Rotagivan.

How did you gain all of your knowledge about our Universe?

You are making a lot of claims about a Universe that is barely understood by the scientists who study it.

Do you have a specific question in relation to my 'knowledge of the Universe' Matadora?

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I don't know whether Arach's 'Random' actually is a correct definition - it doesn't sound like one. Random is simply unplanned. That is nothing to do with unknown. It can be somewhat hard to predict, as for instance in wind currents or a fall of stones in an avalanche, though it all happens in accordance with physics, or it can be something we can predict, though surely we wouldn't regard planetary orbits as 'random' though nobody 'planned' them, while meteors have equally physically determined orbits but we can't predict them because most of them are not on our maps.

So Arach has a point that 'Random' can be a human convenience -term for what we know and can predict, but as Matadora says, that makes no difference to the way the universe works.

And there, so far as we can tell, it isn't to be regarded as Planned, because there is no convincing evidence that it is.
Certainly that applies to mutations which are not unknown and the mechanism is understood, but I would expect that we can't predict how a mutation will turn out or what the effect (if any) will be, and it certainly isn't planned.

first of I thought rad was talking about evolution. My answer was to evolution only really. so that's my bad.

yes. my point is that random means we are not sure how it works or are not sure when the known causes take place. An example of the is super novas. They are random only because of what we don't know. They are not totally random events. But it does fit the definition because we don't know where all the older stars are.

Mutations are random to a degree. If we were to know every incoming event or every misplaced Deoxyribonucleic acid we wouldn't call it 'totally random. That is random based on not knowing what happened. And it fits the definition too.

Matador is wrong. QM works on probability and nobody knows why it works. It is just like gravity. We don't know what gravity is but we can use its formulas. We do not know what makes up the fundamental particles. Sure they use field theory but they do not know what the field is past it being "real". They don't know what a photon is. Yes, they describe some traits, but they don't know what it is. Same with the electron. That's just basic stuff and he is over stating what QM is.

Him insisting that they do is flat out weird to me. He is the only self proclaimed physics guy I ever heard say that. I hope his big brother the astrophysics" pm's me.

[Rotagivan]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Cor, that's a lot, but essentially, correct. None of the evolutionary stuff including abiogenesis or Cosmic Origins disproves a Cosmic Intelligence. It certainly is arguable whether there is good reason consider it plausible, and considering it reliably believable requires a wish to believe it.

Yes as I pointed out, that is one of your problems. You don;t need to 'wish' to 'believe' and in the case of considering ideas like their being a creative intelligence behind the formation of the Universe, having a wish to believe it is the case is not a requirement. Indeed, belefs are best left out of such thinking processes.

Brain disorders implies a brain that doesn't work properly. That isn't the case. It is a question of the application of false reasoning such as using gaps in our knowledge as evidence that there must be a cosmic Intelligence. This is wrong and only Godfaith can account for it.

Yet this 'godfaith' you mention is not necessary. That is your problem.

So, while a believer may have some valid gaps for a god, I would argue that this is illogical.

And I would argue that it is not 'illogical'that a creative intelligence might be behind the existence of the Universe, even then this intelligence need not be regarded as 'G()D' in that traditional sense of the meaning which your mind focuses upon to the seeming exclusion of other thought processes.

However, I don't have a serious beef. Where I do is when the evidence is fiddled to try to produce supportive evidence for a belief. This is quite wrong and dangerous, but it quite common. That isn't a brain disorder either, but is more a logic disorder arising from the need to substantiate Faith -based beliefs and to wangle the evidence that doesn't support it to make it look as though it does.

Assuming that logical processing is done with the brain in mind, are you not just fiddling words here?

Creationism does this from first to last. And of course its apologists suppose that Evolutionists do the same - or at least they claim that they do.

Eeeww! 'apologists'! Name it and shame it eh!


A useless answer.

None are so blind as those defending their beliefs, be those beliefs in G()Ds or beliefs in 'mindless accidents of nature'.

*Belly laugh*

[Everliving]

Even though it is an ancient book and touches on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies. Does not such a book merit, at the very least, our consideration? when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat to the notion that tangible substances or objects held it aloft. Long before science learned about the spread and prevention of disease, physicians employed some practices that were ineffective at best, lethal at worst. But not once in its more than 1,100 chapters does the Bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices. Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to “the circle [or, sphere] of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support—does not that description sound remarkably modern? (Isaiah 45:12) "I made the earth and created man on it. I stretched out the heavens with my own hands, And I give orders to all their army.”(Jeremiah 10:12) He is the Maker of the earth by his power, The One who established the productive land by his wisdom And who stretched out the heavens by his understanding. (Isaiah 51:13) Why do you forget Jehovah your Maker, The One who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth? (Isaiah 51:13) For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.(Psalm 115:16) As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah, But the earth he has given to the sons of men. (Ecclesiastes 1:4) A generation is going, and a generation is coming,But the earth remains forever. (Psalm 37:29) The righteous will possess the earth,And they will live forever on it. (Isaiah 44:24) This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, Who formed you since you were in the womb: “I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth. Who was with me? (1 Corinthians 15:41) The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, one star differs from another star in glory. (Job 38:3-6) Brace yourself, please, like a man; I will question you, and you inform me. Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you think you understand. Who set its measurements, in case you know,Or who stretched a measuring line across it? (Job 38:33) Do you know the laws governing the heavens. (Job 38:31) Can you tie the ropes of the Ki′mah constellation. Or untie the cords of the Ke′sil constellation? In conclusion, these are just a few reasons why millions of people are convinced that the Bible is worthy of trust.

[TroutDude]

Another clueless rookie.

[PanTerra]

Originally Posted by Everliving

[font=Times New Roman][font=Times New Roman][color=black]Even though it is an ancient book and touches on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies.

What version of science are you talking about?

- 21st Century science?
- 17th century science?
- Medieval science?
- Classical Greek science?

or maybe, just maybe

- Ancient Near Eastern science?

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Everliving

In conclusion, these are just a few reasons why millions of people are convinced that the Bible is worthy of trust.

No and many more millions live in the realization that the Bible is just a man created story to try and control the masses.

Let's go to the first Bible...since that was the original one. Then read Genesis and be as as anyone with intelligence, or who is not brainwashed or conditioned should be.

Now look at how many times that silly Bible has been rewritten to try and fit what science has discovered...that alone makes the Bible unworthy of anything.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Someone else want to take this repetition of debunked apologetics for Genesis? I did my quota.



Well taken. It's worth noting that the Hebrew (chwug) for 'circle' is a root that appears elsewhere in the context of inscribing a circle with compasses. This is certainly a flat disc, not a sphere. And there is a different Hebrew term 'dwr' that refers to a ball -shape. If that was used to refer to the 'circle of the earth' I would accept knowledge of a globular earth in the Bible. As it is, a flat circle with dome over it is what the Bible tells us we got. It is incorrect.

So it is not a science book. Good. Then let the believers stop using it to contest science that is deemed to be contradicting it.

P.s kudos for recognizing that evolutionists do look at the origins of life and are constantly working on it. So I have never been too happy about this 'Abiogenesis is nothing to do with evolution' response, even though strictly correct - it is about the way it developed, not about how it started.

I certainly see in the discussion about chemical evolution and the role of thermodynamics is selecting for an evolutionary bias towards complexity as very much related to evolution theory. But it is not validated as natural selection through mutation is.

No, the Bible is not a science book--not even remotely. At the same time many of the early Church fathers held to a spherical shape---sort of. Here is the quick and dirty from Wiki.

During the early Church period, with some exceptions, most held a spherical view, for instance, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose to name a few.[67]


In Book III of The Divine Institutes[68] Lactantius ridicules the notion that there could be inhabitants of the antipodes "whose footsteps are higher than their heads." After presenting some arguments he attributes to advocates for a spherical heaven and Earth, he writes:

But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies that are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another.

Saint Augustine (354–430) took a more cautious approach in arguing against assuming that people inhabited the antipodes:

But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part that is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.[69]

Since these people would have to be descended from Adam, they would have had to travel to the other side of the Earth at some point; Augustine continues:

It is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man.

Scholars of Augustine's work have traditionally understood him to have shared the common view of his educated contemporaries that the Earth is spherical, in line with the quotation above, and with Augustine's famous endorsement of science in De Genesi ad litteram.

{Middle Ages}

The monk Bede (c. 672 – 735) wrote in his influential treatise on computus, The Reckoning of Time, that the Earth was round ('not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembl[ing] more a ball'), explaining the unequal length of daylight from "the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called 'the orb of the world' on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe." (De temporum ratione, 32). The large number of surviving manuscripts of The Reckoning of Time, copied to meet the Carolingian requirement that all priests should study the computus, indicates that many, if not most, priests were exposed to the idea of the sphericity of the Earth.[94] Ælfric of Eynsham paraphrased Bede into Old English, saying "Now the Earth's roundness and the Sun's orbit constitute the obstacle to the day's being equally long in every land.

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So perhaps not as many of those early Christians bought into the "flat earth" idea, even if some of them had the earth as the center of the universe. Certainly Thomas Aquinas did not.