Apparent contradictions in Genesis [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Apparent contradictions in Genesis


Vic Hays
06-13-2011, 15:18
Japle wants some answers:
quote:At the risk of hijacking this thread, I’ll give a brief answer.

As I recall, I was bothered by multiple contradictory accounts in Genesis.

Genesis 1:25-27
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
In this version, Humans were created after the other animals.

Genesis 2:18-19
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
In this version, Humans were created before the other animals.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
In this version, man and woman were created simultaneously.

Genesis 2:18-22
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
In this version, man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

God created light and separated light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19).

How could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? Quote:



1. There seem to be differing accounts of creation in Genesis.

Answer: The method of writing is not the same as our western method of writing. Often the story is told one way and then other details are written about later. This is parallelism.

Check carefully. The accounts do not necessarily give the order, only that it was the sixth day of creation week.

2. The evening and the morning were the first day. How could there be night and day without the sun moon and stars which were created on the fourth day?

Answer: Light was created and contrasted with the darkness. It was explained to me that the account of creation week was from the point of view of being on the surface of the earth. The earth was without form and void. Apparently it existed before it was changed into something able to support life. Is it possible that the atmosphere was not transparent enough to see the sun moon and stars? The fourth day it does not say that God made the stars on the fourth day. It says that God made the stars also.

Creation week is mostly about getting the earth ready to support life and the creation of life.

rgregoryb
06-13-2011, 15:31
Jedp...............

Brasso
06-13-2011, 15:57
The light created before the sun was created was the Torah / Messiah. The light is separate, or set apart (holy), from the darkness.

greenlion
06-13-2011, 16:06
Pink unicorns are hollow. That is why the blue glitter unicorns weigh more and leave footprints behind, whereas the pink ones do not.

That answers all your questions right there.

Japle
06-13-2011, 17:19
Vic, I've heard those "explanations" and many others over the years.

They are, to put it mildly, not convincing. They require that you read a lot into Genesis that isn't there.

You can also explain that Mercury could fly with those tiny wings on his heels because he ate a lot of beans and was getting considerable thrust from the resulting gas.

That isn’t mentioned anywhere in my copy of Bullfinches’ Mythology, but as good an explanation as you’re going to get.

Harper
06-13-2011, 17:26
Check carefully. The accounts do not necessarily give the order, only that it was the sixth day of creation week.



NIV does though. What's with that?

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Norske
06-13-2011, 18:04
Because they were written by a bunch of barely literate goat herders who were trying, for the first time, to write down myths that had passed down to them, generation by generation, verbally, for thousands of years.

And no, they were NOT the revealed words of "God".

The OT is the written -- wildly successful -- historical political propaganda of the Israeli People.

It is the biggest example of the saying that the "The Victors write the Histories".

Or in this case, "The Survivors write the Histories".

achysklic
06-13-2011, 18:08
All I can say is I am glad I invested in a translation of the bible that actually translated Gen. correctly so there is no doubts and contradictions.

You get what you pay for.

achysklic
06-13-2011, 18:10
Because they were written by a bunch of barely literate goat herders who were trying, for the first time, to write down myths that had passed down to them, generation by generation, verbally, for thousands of years.

And no, they were NOT the revealed words of "God".

The OT is the written -- wildly successful -- historical political propaganda of the Israeli People.

It is the biggest example of the saying that the "The Victors write the Histories".

Or in this case, "The Survivors write the Histories".

Why speak it makes you look foolish, Gen. along with the first 5 books of the bible had only one writer.

ArtificialGrape
06-13-2011, 18:30
All I can say is I am glad I invested in a translation of the bible that actually translated Gen. correctly so there is no doubts and contradictions.

You get what you pay for.
Don't hold out, which translation are you using?

Thanks!

rgregoryb
06-13-2011, 18:33
Why speak it makes you look foolish, Gen. along with the first 5 books of the bible had only one writer.

I'll bet you are going to say Moses, incredibly he wrote about his own death.....how did he do that?

J (for the writer or writers who referred to God as Jahweh/Yahweh, "the Lord"), E (for the writer or writers who referred to God as Elohim, "God"), P (for the writer or writers who were concerned with priestly matters) and D (for the writer or writers of Deuteronomy).
JEDP

Ramjet38
06-13-2011, 18:56
Don't hold out, which translation are you using?

Thanks!

:nailbiting:

Mushinto
06-13-2011, 21:59
The light created before the sun was created was the Torah / Messiah. The light is separate, or set apart (holy), from the darkness.

Beat me to it.

Animal Mother
06-13-2011, 22:04
1. There seem to be differing accounts of creation in Genesis.

Answer: The method of writing is not the same as our western method of writing. Often the story is told one way and then other details are written about later. This is parallelism.

Check carefully. The accounts do not necessarily give the order, only that it was the sixth day of creation week. Man and woman being made together and in the same way is not parallel to man being made first, then animals, then woman being made from man's rib.

This was recognized in Jewish folklore, where Lilith takes the role of the first wife and Eve is created to replace her.

Vic Hays
06-13-2011, 22:54
Vic, I've heard those "explanations" and many others over the years.

They are, to put it mildly, not convincing. They require that you read a lot into Genesis that isn't there.



It is best not to conjecture. There is plenty in the Bible to strengthen your faith. There are some areas that can cause doubt. Which do you want, faith or unbelief? It is basically a choice. I choose to believe that I have value and purpose. This is not blind faith. Like I said there is plenty in the Bible to hang your faith on.

Tilley
06-13-2011, 23:04
Because they were written by a bunch of barely literate goat herders who were trying, for the first time, to write down myths that had passed down to them, generation by generation, verbally, for thousands of years.

Kinda like-------------->http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/image.jpg

Japle
06-14-2011, 06:15
Posted by Vic Hays:
It is best not to conjecture. There is plenty in the Bible to strengthen your faith. There are some areas that can cause doubt. Which do you want, faith or unbelief?

I want the truth.

achysklic
06-14-2011, 07:11
Don't hold out, which translation are you using?

Thanks!

http://www.restoringtheoriginalbible.com/

Vic Hays
06-14-2011, 10:06
I want the truth.

Jesus is the Truth. Do you want Him?

Norske
06-14-2011, 11:01
Why speak it makes you look foolish, Gen. along with the first 5 books of the bible had only one writer.

Are you referring to Abram, later alias "Abraham"?

The same guy who pimped his wife Sarai, later alias, Sarah, to Pharoah in exchange for new flocks of sheep and goats and manservents and maidservents, etc.?

If you really believe that Pharoah laid all those riches on Abram because he really, really liked Sarai's pretty face, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying in lower Manhattan.

The Bible says he liked her "face" but I'd bet that it was a mistranslation of "head". :rofl:

Norske
06-14-2011, 11:02
Kinda like-------------->http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/image.jpg



Never said it wasn't.

Japle
06-14-2011, 11:30
Posted by Vic:
Jesus is the Truth. Do you want Him?

Even if I did, he doesn't seem to be available.
Repeated prophecies of his “return” have been (and will continue to be) wildly optimistic.

ArtificialGrape
06-14-2011, 11:39
http://www.restoringtheoriginalbible.com/
Thanks for the pointer.

ArtificialGrape
06-14-2011, 11:40
Kinda like-------------->http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/image.jpg
Forget about trading your cloak for a sword when you can have Thor rockin' a cape and sporting a hammer!

BradD
06-14-2011, 11:51
Did I read the description correctly, that this translation only has 49 books? What's up with that?

Guss
06-14-2011, 12:53
A minister told me that he learned the following at a theological college:

The "beginning" stories circulated orally for a long time before a few people learned to write. As you might expect, stories develop deviations as they are re-told across a land. As writing came into use, someone thought that it would be a good idea to write down the stories which would hopefully reduce the amount of deviation. Unfortunately, they were unable to determine which of the stories was the absolute truth, so they recorded the two best stories which became Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In other words - The people that put it into writing probably understood better than we do that it was imperfect. So if they were not able to make the two stories mesh, we shouldn't be expected to.

greenlion
06-14-2011, 14:22
A minister told me that he learned the following at a theological college:

The "beginning" stories circulated orally for a long time before a few people learned to write. As you might expect, stories develop deviations as they are re-told across a land. As writing came into use, someone thought that it would be a good idea to write down the stories which would hopefully reduce the amount of deviation. Unfortunately, they were unable to determine which of the stories was the absolute truth, so they recorded the two best stories which became Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In other words - The people that put it into writing probably understood better than we do that it was imperfect. So if they were not able to make the two stories mesh, we shouldn't be expected to.

Given that it was probably recorded in the late Bronze Age, I highly doubt the recorders were using the historical-critical-method, or any scientific arguments to weigh which version was technically "more correct". They just wrote down the two versions of the story that were circulating at the time of the writing, which would have been the ONLY explanation of the history of the world they had access to since the enlightenment period was still a few years away...

I also very much doubt that the writers understood better than we do that the stories were imperfect. Most mythic religion was (and still is in some places) taken as literal truth.

Peace Warrior
06-14-2011, 14:52
(Posting here now in order to receive updates and additions.)

Japle
06-14-2011, 15:00
Posted by Guss:
The "beginning" stories circulated orally for a long time before a few people learned to write. As you might expect, stories develop deviations as they are re-told across a land. As writing came into use, someone thought that it would be a good idea to write down the stories which would hopefully reduce the amount of deviation. Unfortunately, they were unable to determine which of the stories was the absolute truth, so they recorded the two best stories which became Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In other words - The people that put it into writing probably understood better than we do that it was imperfect. So if they were not able to make the two stories mesh, we shouldn't be expected to.

Right. As the stories were re-told, they developed deviations.
It’s like the old children’s game “telephone”. Each person changes the story a bit and at the end, it’s changed beyond belief (pun intended).

The reason they weren’t able to determine which version of the story was true was because they were all myth. As you said, “if they were not able to make the two stories mesh, we shouldn't be expected to”.

The Bible was the first major religious document to be written outside the Orient. It was a fumbling first attempt, but it didn’t have any serious competition.
Since most people couldn’t read or write and considered books to be semi magical, the Bible had great appeal.

Vic Hays
06-14-2011, 15:29
Even if I did, he doesn't seem to be available.
Repeated prophecies of his “return” have been (and will continue to be) wildly optimistic.

Those predictions have been based upon faulty interpretation.
At Jesus first coming, the majority were not looking for Him or outright didn't want Him.

The Wise men asked where the Christ would be born. The scribe knew it would be Bethlehem and yet no one was looking for Him there except the wise men and some shepherds that God knew would appreciate Him.

Japle
06-14-2011, 17:48
Vic, I'd like to continue this conversation, but it's outside the subject of the thread.

BradD
06-14-2011, 21:33
...I've heard those "explanations" and many others over the years.

They are, to put it mildly, not convincing. They require that you read a lot into Genesis that isn't there.
...
Have you went through a detailed study of Genesis? In other words, a study put together by a Bible scholar? I think you'd get a better answer than you'd get from a layperson Sunday School teacher or some random guys (of who knows what background and level of education on the subject) on the internet.

There are lots of commentaries out there. I've been reading and listening to MacArthur a lot lately, and he explains things in a very detail-oriented manner. His "origins" series is at the following link and I'd be shocked if your answers aren't there.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermon+Series/255_The-Battle-for-the-Beginning

muscogee
06-14-2011, 21:45
All I can say is I am glad I invested in a translation of the bible that actually translated Gen. correctly so there is no doubts and contradictions.

You get what you pay for.

Absolutely. If it agrees with you, then it must be correct. It's the one written by the big hand that came out of the sky.

muscogee
06-14-2011, 21:47
Why speak it makes you look foolish, Gen. along with the first 5 books of the bible had only one writer.

He must have been several thousand years old when he died.

Animal Mother
06-14-2011, 22:18
Have you went through a detailed study of Genesis? In other words, a study put together by a Bible scholar? I think you'd get a better answer than you'd get from a layperson Sunday School teacher or some random guys (of who knows what background and level of education on the subject) on the internet.

There are lots of commentaries out there. I've been reading and listening to MacArthur a lot lately, and he explains things in a very detail-oriented manner. His "origins" series is at the following link and I'd be shocked if your answers aren't there.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermon+Series/255_The-Battle-for-the-Beginning

MacArthur doesn't really address the questions at all. He does the same thing Vic Hays has, insists that you either accept his interpretation of scripture and not ask any questions. He also veers off into the traditional creationist tactic of trying to connect evolutionary theory to Hitler just for good measure.

Brasso
06-14-2011, 22:24
The traditional Jewish interpretation is that Genesis is written in parable form. A story, that while true, is meant to give insight rather than a scientific record.

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2011, 04:47
Because they were written by a bunch of barely literate goat herders who were trying, for the first time, to write down myths that had passed down to them, generation by generation, verbally, for thousands of years.

And no, they were NOT the revealed words of "God".

The OT is the written -- wildly successful -- historical political propaganda of the Israeli People.

It is the biggest example of the saying that the "The Victors write the Histories".

Or in this case, "The Survivors write the Histories".

Please explain how it is historical propaganda, when it details and documents all the sins/faults of their leaders? If you compare other mesopotamian writings at the time, they never refer to their leadership in any derogatory fashion whatsoever. That would be the historical propoganda.

Animal Mother
06-15-2011, 06:53
Please explain how it is historical propaganda, when it details and documents all the sins/faults of their leaders? If you compare other mesopotamian writings at the time, they never refer to their leadership in any derogatory fashion whatsoever. That would be the historical propoganda. Have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh? The whole thing starts out with Gilgamesh abusing the people.

BradD
06-15-2011, 07:28
MacArthur doesn't really address the questions at all. He does the same thing Vic Hays has, insists that you either accept his interpretation of scripture and not ask any questions. He also veers off into the traditional creationist tactic of trying to connect evolutionary theory to Hitler just for good measure.
You're doing what I've seen you and your unbelieving friends accuse others of doing: you addressed a different issue, one for which you think you have a stronger grip.

The thread is about apparent contradictions. In other words, in one verse, the Bible says x and in some other verse, the Bible says y.

You are focusing on something else entirely: MacArthur's arguments against evolution and billions of years, but that's not the topic of this thread, or at least it wasn't. The Hitler remark was well placed also.

Of course, the motivation is obvious. As a strong atheist evangelist (?--there's gotta be a good word for that. atheigelist atheistgelist?! LOL), you'd hate for Japle to go listen to a few hours of actual explanation and perhaps start wondering if he has run down the wrong snake hole due to poor understanding when he was younger.

Animal Mother
06-15-2011, 07:55
You're doing what I've seen you and your unbelieving friends accuse others of doing: you addressed a different issue, one for which you think you have a stronger grip.

The thread is about apparent contradictions. In other words, in one verse, the Bible says x and in some other verse, the Bible says y.

You are focusing on something else entirely: MacArthur's arguments against evolution and billions of years, but that's not the topic of this thread, or at least it wasn't. The Hitler remark was well placed also.

Of course, the motivation is obvious. As a strong atheist evangelist (?--there's gotta be a good word for that. atheigelist atheistgelist?! LOL), you'd hate for Japle to go listen to a few hours of actual explanation and perhaps start wondering if he has run down the wrong snake hole due to poor understanding when he was younger. I couldn't address MacArthur's response to the apparent contradictions in Genesis, because he doesn't address them. At least in the page you linked, he only spoke about Genesis 1 in detail and focused primarily on the dispute between creationism and science.

I addressed the issues that MacArthur brought up in the link you offered, I couldn't address his take on the discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2, because he simply ignores them.

I don't care what Japle listens to, though I read the transcripts rather than listening to them, because the evidence is clearly in favor of the scientific position and that's what is important.

Japle
06-15-2011, 09:44
Posted by BradD:
As a strong atheist evangelist (?--there's gotta be a good word for that. atheigelist atheistgelist?! LOL), you'd hate for Japle to go listen to a few hours of actual explanation and perhaps start wondering if he has run down the wrong snake hole due to poor understanding when he was younger.

I've listened to many hours of people trying to explain Biblical contradictions. It always comes down to the same old hooey.

"That's not what it really says", followed by a line of BS based on something that's not in Genesis at all, but sounds reasonable to the speaker.

"We're only human and have no business questioning the inspired word of God". I call this the "We are not worthy" answer.

Mushinto
06-15-2011, 10:42
Why do the pagans and atheists spend so much time trying to prove religious people are wrong?

ArtificialGrape
06-15-2011, 11:21
Why do the pagans and atheists spend so much time trying to prove religious people are wrong?
Have you asked snowbird why he spends so much time arguing against Islam?

Speaking for myself, here are a few reasons: Religious faith is dangerous.
Religion is not compatible with a sustainable world civilization.
The religious (certainly Christians) insist on pushing their morals on society as a whole (stem cell research, homosexuality, contraception, abortion).
Interference with science education and attempts to understand the world/universe that we live in. To many religious people/groups science is a threat to how literally they interpret Genesis, so science must be undermined. Science is not needed because the Bible has the answers, God did it.

-ArtificialGrape

FifthFreedom
06-15-2011, 11:53
I'll bet you are going to say Moses, incredibly he wrote about his own death.....how did he do that?

J (for the writer or writers who referred to God as Jahweh/Yahweh, "the Lord"), E (for the writer or writers who referred to God as Elohim, "God"), P (for the writer or writers who were concerned with priestly matters) and D (for the writer or writers of Deuteronomy).
JEDP

UM, Joshua wrote the ending of Deuteronomy. :whistling:

ksg0245
06-15-2011, 11:59
Why do the pagans and atheists spend so much time trying to prove religious people are wrong?

It isn't so much trying to prove them wrong as it is getting them to support their claims with objective, verifiable evidence.

Japle
06-15-2011, 12:17
ksg0245, I think what you mean is "trying to get them to support their claims with objective, verifiable evidence".

They can't actually do it, but challenging them to try keeps them on their toes.

ksg0245
06-15-2011, 13:49
ksg0245, I think what you mean is "trying to get them to support their claims with objective, verifiable evidence".

They can't actually do it, but challenging them to try keeps them on their toes.

Right on both counts.

Peace Warrior
06-15-2011, 13:57
The traditional Jewish interpretation is that Genesis is written in parable form. A story, that while true, is meant to give insight rather than a scientific record.
Well, a parable does not indicate who or what made stars. As far as I'm concerned, current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway.

Genesis Chap 1 indicates that the Creator made the stars by using His Word. True science cannot refute this claim/assertion, and by the same token, true science can and does prove, beyond all doubt, the stars are actually there.

Go figure huh? :cool:

Animal Mother
06-15-2011, 14:29
Well, a parable does not indicate who or what made stars. As far as I'm concerned, current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway. It isn't scientifically impossible, we can see stars in various stages of formation all through the cosmos.
Genesis Chap 1 indicates that the Creator made the stars by using His Word. True science cannot refute this claim/assertion, and by the same token, true science can and does prove, beyond all doubt, the stars are actually there.
How is science supposed to refute "the Creator made the stars by using His Word."? What is testable about that claim? What science can, and does, do is show how stars can form without requiring supernatural intervention.
Go figure huh? :cool: I'm still waiting for you to reveal the great secret of Lucy's knee, it's only been four years so far but Duke Nukem Forever finally came out so I suppose anything is possible.

ksg0245
06-15-2011, 15:02
Well, a parable does not indicate who or what made stars.

Doesn't it say "he also made the stars"?

As far as I'm concerned, current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway.

Could you please provide links to both the research demonstrating the impossibility of stars forming by themselves, and the research indicating they were "created"?

Genesis Chap 1 indicates that the Creator made the stars by using His Word. True science cannot refute this claim/assertion,

That's all it is; an unsupported assertion by an unknown long dead author.

and by the same token, true science can and does prove, beyond all doubt, the stars are actually there.

It does so by observation and experimentation. Have any deities been observed by any scientists?

Go figure huh? :cool:

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2011, 17:07
Have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh? The whole thing starts out with Gilgamesh abusing the people.

Have you picked up a basic ancient history primer? The people of the Mesopotamian region typically documented their kings and gods, and refused document negative events. On the other hand in scripture, if a king did evil, it was very well documented. The Old Tesament is very explicit about all wrong doing from the higest to the lowest, sparing no one from rebuke.

You will not find that type of documentation in an historical record in that region.

muscogee
06-15-2011, 18:02
Have you picked up a basic ancient history primer? The people of the Mesopotamian region typically documented their kings and gods, and refused document negative events. On the other hand in scripture, if a king did evil, it was very well documented. The Old Tesament is very explicit about all wrong doing from the higest to the lowest, sparing no one from rebuke.


Except God who gets a free pass, no matter what he does.

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2011, 19:35
Except God who gets a free pass, no matter what he does.

Ah, yes. The God that created life and everything that you have and own. The God who allowed free will, even if it meant bad decisions. The God who came to earth, was born in extreme poverty in an animal food troph in a cave. The same God who lived in the poorest part of the country in which he took carnate form. The same God who lived in a blended family, and wasn't appreciated by his step-brothers. The same God who was slandered, maligned, while offering healing and salvation. The same God who was beaten, tortured, and murdered to provide a way of escape for you and everyone else.

The same God, who despite all those things you reject and slander. You mean that God?

Animal Mother
06-15-2011, 21:00
Have you picked up a basic ancient history primer? Quite a few actually.
The people of the Mesopotamian region typically documented their kings and gods, and refused document negative events. On the other hand in scripture, if a king did evil, it was very well documented. That's simply untrue, I've already cited one example that is contrary to your claim.
The Old Tesament is very explicit about all wrong doing from the higest to the lowest, sparing no one from rebuke. And they all follow the same theme, straying from proper worship of the biblical God. They aren't historical accounts, they're story to reinforce the need to worship God and follow the commandments contained in scripture.

As for the claim that negative stories about monarchs aren't recorded, it is simply untrue. There are numerous instances of negative accounts regarding rulers in the area, take the stories of Naram-Sin as an example.
You will not find that type of documentation in an historical record in that region. Yes, we do. Lugalanda of Lagash is another example, attested to in the primary source material who isn't portrayed in a flattering way.

muscogee
06-15-2011, 21:35
Ah, yes. The God that created life and everything that you have and own. The God who allowed free will, even if it meant bad decisions. The God who came to earth, was born in extreme poverty in an animal food troph in a cave. The same God who lived in the poorest part of the country in which he took carnate form. The same God who lived in a blended family, and wasn't appreciated by his step-brothers. The same God who was slandered, maligned, while offering healing and salvation. The same God who was beaten, tortured, and murdered to provide a way of escape for you and everyone else.

The same God, who despite all those things you reject and slander. You mean that God?

I mean the hypocritical God who says one thing and then does something else. I mean the God who has a temper tantrum about the Garden of Eden and holds a grudge against the descendants of Adam, Eve, and that ancient snake, indefinitely but tells me to forgive seven times seventy. I mean the God who says he loves me but threatens to send me to Hell if I don't worship him even though he gives no concrete evidence that he exists. I mean the God that allows innocent children to die horrible deaths every day and does nothing about it but claims he is a God of love. I mean the God who takes credit for everything good and blames everything bad on humans and Satan.

Snapper2
06-15-2011, 22:37
I mean the hypocritical God who says one thing and then does something else. I mean the God who has a temper tantrum about the Garden of Eden and holds a grudge against the descendants of Adam, Eve, and that ancient snake, indefinitely but tells me to forgive seven times seventy. I mean the God who says he loves me but threatens to send me to Hell if I don't worship him even though he gives no concrete evidence that he exists. I mean the God that allows innocent children to die horrible deaths every day and does nothing about it but claims he is a God of love. I mean the God who takes credit for everything good and blames everything bad on humans and Satan.

Didnt He give concrete evidence to Adam? If He did either Adam didnt believe Him or wanted his own way.

Japle
06-16-2011, 06:26
Posted by Snapper2:
Didnt He give concrete evidence to Adam? If He did either Adam didnt believe Him or wanted his own way.

This argument is based on a monumentally invalid assumption.

muscogee
06-16-2011, 07:19
Didnt He give concrete evidence to Adam?
I'm aware of the myth. Where is the evidence that Adam actual existed? Before you say it, the Bible is not evidence that Adam existed. A book of mythology is not evidence that a myth is fact.

If He did either Adam didnt believe Him or wanted his own way.

Where is this statement coming from?

Peace Warrior
06-16-2011, 11:53
It isn't scientifically impossible, we can see stars in various stages of formation all through the cosmos. ...
The book of Genesis, IIRC, does not state that stars are "in various stages of formation." In Gen, beginning at verse 14 (i.e., THE Forth day) and ending here with verse 19, but while paying particular attention to the last part of verse 16, the Holy Bible states the following:

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


As I'm sure you will have to agree, these verses concerning star creation in Genesis make no implication that stars are "in various stages of formation," but rather that He made the stars also. Period.

Even so, -am,- if you know of one star that science has observed forming, or that is "in [a] various stage of formation," please give me a link or reference to this star as that very well may be a contradiction to the verse in Genesis.

Peace Warrior
06-16-2011, 12:26
Doesn't it say "he also made the stars"? ...
Technically, Gen 1:16 states, He made the stars also. However, this is not a parable, this is a statement of fact detailing a certain event at a certain point/day in the creation process.

... Could you please provide links... the research indicating [stars] were "created"? ...
I'll start with your last point first, as I never stated such.

I reiterate, all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves. I've never said that research indicates they were created. The last part of Gen 1:16 states they were created. Science/Research cannot disprove this assertion.

... Could you please provide links to both the research demonstrating the impossibility of stars forming by themselves ...
The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the star theory formation, shall we begin with the "big bang" explosion and the impossibility of stars to form at all?

“If the [big bang's] fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing.

At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass-density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars.”—*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation
and the Universe (1969), p. 62.

But if you find something to contradict Gen 1:16, please let me know.

Animal Mother
06-16-2011, 15:36
The book of Genesis, IIRC, does not state that stars are "in various stages of formation." Looking up in the sky tells us the opposite.
In Gen, beginning at verse 14 (i.e., THE Forth day) and ending here with verse 19, but while paying particular attention to the last part of verse 16, the Holy Bible states the following:

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


As I'm sure you will have to agree, these verses concerning star creation in Genesis make no implication that stars are "in various stages of formation," but rather that He made the stars also. Period. Sure, I'll agree with that, but it doesn't change the fact that we can observe stars in various states of both formation and disintegration by observing the world around us.
Even so, -am,- if you know of one star that science has observed forming, or that is "in [a] various stage of formation," please give me a link or reference to this star as that very well may be a contradiction to the verse in Genesis.http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/544959main_hubble_may12_4x3_946-710.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/559745main1_hs-2011-18-b-web-670.jpg

Want more? There are literally thousands of them.

Animal Mother
06-16-2011, 15:38
I reiterate, all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves. Could you please provide a link to this research. I'm especially interested given that the simple expedient of looking through a telescope tells us exactly the opposite.

And please, if you could focus on research published in peer reviewed scientific journals I think it would save us all a lot of time.

Snapper2
06-16-2011, 15:59
I'm aware of the myth. Where is the evidence that Adam actual existed? Before you say it, the Bible is not evidence that Adam existed. A book of mythology is not evidence that a myth is fact.



Where is this statement coming from?

Ok, so it is a myth to you. But weren't you ranting about a garden where God communed with a man and a woman? Isnt that concrete evidence enough for them by your own argument? When they broke that "communion" willfully, they chose to lose that concrete evidence. But He still made a covering for them regardless.Some people reject even the covering. I asked why Adam would break this communion with God. Was it because of unbelief or because he wanted the knowlege of God, but by eating from a "certain tree" and not from God Himself? The point isnt whether or not Adam existed but what you would have done in his place. Given evidence and given paradise. Only one Man got it right.

Snapper2
06-16-2011, 16:29
This argument is based on a monumentally invalid assumption.

The only reason for assumption is doubt. Study doubt, get more of the same. But if your wrong, how much more of a "monumentally invalid assumption" can there be? There is really no reason for argument until there is doubt is there?

Peace Warrior
06-16-2011, 16:30
Looking up in the sky tells us the opposite.
Sure, I'll agree with that, but it doesn't change the fact that we can observe stars in various states of both formation and disintegration by observing the world around us.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/544959main_hubble_may12_4x3_946-710.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/559745main1_hs-2011-18-b-web-670.jpg

Want more? There are literally thousands of them.
Ummmm.... with all due respect, I thought we were going to discuss the discipline(s) of actual science with regards to scientists and these so called contradictions occurring in the book of Genesis, which by the way, these photos you have posted on the thread, do they actually, irrefutably, and scientifically, show NEW stars forming and or new stars that are "in various states of formation?"

Peace Warrior
06-16-2011, 16:51
Could you please provide a link to this research. I'm especially interested given that the simple expedient of looking through a telescope tells us exactly the opposite.

And please, if you could focus on research published in peer reviewed scientific journals I think it would save us all a lot of time.
I honestly believe that your simple minded regards to an 'expedient' is being taken far to seriously for a ride, from your personalized agenda, as real science indicates a diametrically opposing view.

In fact, real, actual science wholly controverts your assertions, within the confines of both the Book of Genesis and commonly accepted, non-perverted science. Categorically speaking, your assertions concerning star formation, and additionally as well as your laughable implication(s) that real science gives us proof that stellar/star evolution is a fact due to some photographic pinpoints of parts of our vast cosmos is a complete and total fairy tale based on the fact that no human eye, even with the help of a telescope, has ever witnessed a star's formation or "birth."

Fingerprints from Rainbows

Mercury, September/October 2004 Table of Contents

by Ben Bova
spectrum
Courtesy of J. White

Astronomers are hunters, detectives who track down the elusive workings of nature. Their "suspects" and "witnesses" are the points of light in the sky that we call the stars. How do you interrogate a suspect that is light-years away from you? Even in the most powerful telescopes, all you can see of the stars are mere pinpoints of light. Telescopes allow us to see more stars, to peer deeper into the vast darkness. But each star remains a tiny pinpoint of light—except, of course, for the Sun. (http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/33_05/rainbows.html)

ArtificialGrape
06-16-2011, 17:28
I honestly believe that your simple minded regards to an 'expedient' is being taken far to seriously for a ride, from your personalized agenda, as real science indicates a diametrically opposing view.

In fact, real, actual science wholly controverts your assertions, within the confines of both the Book of Genesis and commonly accepted, non-perverted science. Categorically speaking, your assertions concerning star formation, and additionally as well as your laughable implication(s) that real science gives us proof that stellar/star evolution is a fact due to some photographic pinpoints of parts of our vast cosmos is a complete and total fairy tale based on the fact that no human eye, even with the help of a telescope, has ever witnessed a star's formation or "birth."

Fingerprints from Rainbows

Mercury, September/October 2004 Table of Contents

by Ben Bova
spectrum
Courtesy of J. White

Astronomers are hunters, detectives who track down the elusive workings of nature. Their "suspects" and "witnesses" are the points of light in the sky that we call the stars. How do you interrogate a suspect that is light-years away from you? Even in the most powerful telescopes, all you can see of the stars are mere pinpoints of light. Telescopes allow us to see more stars, to peer deeper into the vast darkness. But each star remains a tiny pinpoint of light—except, of course, for the Sun. (http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/33_05/rainbows.html)

You're basing your argument on a philosopher, not a scientist, from 175 years ago?

ArtificialGrape
06-16-2011, 17:35
The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the star theory formation, shall we begin with the "big bang" explosion and the impossibility of stars to form at all?
Actually quite a lot is know about the birth, life and death of stars.

Here's an explanation with pretty pictures and everything. (http://sunshine.chpc.utah.edu/labs/star_life/starlife_main.html)

-ArtificialGrape

Japle
06-16-2011, 17:40
Posted by Snapper2:
Didnt He give concrete evidence to Adam? If He did either Adam didnt believe Him or wanted his own way.
Reply by Japle:
This argument is based on a monumentally invalid assumption.

Response by Snapper:
The only reason for assumption is doubt. Study doubt, get more of the same. But if your [sic] wrong, how much more of a "monumentally invalid assumption" can there be? There is really no reason for argument until there is doubt is there?
The reason for assumption is ignorance. If you don’t know, you fall back on assumption.

I’m not sure how you’d study doubt, except from a philosophical perspective.
I’m pretty sure that if you study invalid assumptions, you’ll find yourself doubting the conclusions.

If I’m wrong, then everything we’ve learned about paleoanthropology, geology, ancient history, DNA and a bunch of other well-established sciences in the last 200 years is wrong.

I’d say that assuming a mythical story is more accurate than all that science is really, really invalid.

muscogee
06-16-2011, 17:41
Ok, so it is a myth to you. But weren't you ranting about a garden where God communed with a man and a woman? Isnt that concrete evidence enough for them by your own argument? When they broke that "communion" willfully, they chose to lose that concrete evidence. But He still made a covering for them regardless.Some people reject even the covering. I asked why Adam would break this communion with God. Was it because of unbelief or because he wanted the knowlege of God, but by eating from a "certain tree" and not from God Himself?

Since Adam lacked knowledge of good and evil before eating that fruit, he was guiltless. He was punished for his ignorance. He was ignorant because God made him ignorant and tried to keep him ignorant. The fault lies with God, not with Adam.


The point isnt whether or not Adam existed but what you would have done in his place.
Why is that? You're attempting to change the subject.

Kingarthurhk
06-16-2011, 18:22
Since Adam lacked knowledge of good and evil before eating that fruit, he was guiltless. He was punished for his ignorance. He was ignorant because God made him ignorant and tried to keep him ignorant. The fault lies with God, not with Adam.


Why is that? You're attempting to change the subject.

And what is wrong with never knowing evil? Do you need to know Dhamer's eating habits by watching him prepare a victim and devouring them in every gory second of the act? How, is knowing evil worthwhile? He was not punished for ignorance, but for willful disobedience. Because of that, as the leader of the earth, it was surrendered to Satan who took the form of a serpent. And he has been running amok ever since, causing disease and destruction while merrily blamming it all on God.

I guess it must be nice to be able to rob banks and blame it on the police, and have people believe you.

You, this very day, choose your own fate, just as Adam chose his. However, Adam is saved in the same manner you have at your disposal, the sacrifice of that same God you malign.

Would you be tortured to death to save anyone? He did it to save everyone. Considering He created us, we rightly belong to Him. It is not just anyone who would be willing to endure what He did for something created.

Snapper2
06-16-2011, 18:40
Since Adam lacked knowledge of good and evil before eating that fruit, he was guiltless. He was punished for his ignorance. He was ignorant because God made him ignorant and tried to keep him ignorant. The fault lies with God, not with Adam.

The statement "good and evil" admits that there was evil(without dominion) in a good place(the garden). Why do you find God at fault when He was trying to keep someone ignorant of evil? God didnt have to tell Adam he was guilty, he experienced it.

Kingarthurhk
06-16-2011, 18:52
1 John 4:7-21,"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. <SUP id=en-NIV-30612 class=versenum>8</SUP> Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. <SUP id=en-NIV-30613 class=versenum>9</SUP> This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. <SUP id=en-NIV-30614 class=versenum>10</SUP> This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. <SUP id=en-NIV-30615 class=versenum>11</SUP> Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. <SUP id=en-NIV-30616 class=versenum>12</SUP> No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

<SUP id=en-NIV-30617 class=versenum>13</SUP> This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. <SUP id=en-NIV-30618 class=versenum>14</SUP> And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. <SUP id=en-NIV-30619 class=versenum>15</SUP> If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. <SUP id=en-NIV-30620 class=versenum>16</SUP> And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. <SUP id=en-NIV-30621 class=versenum>17</SUP> This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. <SUP id=en-NIV-30622 class=versenum>18</SUP> There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. <SUP id=en-NIV-30623 class=versenum>19</SUP> We love because he first loved us. <SUP id=en-NIV-30624 class=versenum>20</SUP> Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. <SUP id=en-NIV-30625 class=versenum>21</SUP> And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister."

Snapper2
06-16-2011, 19:01
If I’m wrong, then everything we’ve learned about paleoanthropology, geology, ancient history, DNA and a bunch of other well-established sciences in the last 200 years is wrong.


So if the world is millions of years old. And we're basing what we believe on what we've learned in the last 200yrs. And before that they based it on the prior 200yrs and so on and so on, are we the apex generation that has it right? "I might not be able to tell you whats right, but I'll sure tell you what aint":whistling:

ArtificialGrape
06-16-2011, 20:20
So if the world is millions of years old. And we're basing what we believe on what we've learned in the last 200yrs. And before that they based it on the prior 200yrs and so on and so on, are we the apex generation that has it right? "I might not be able to tell you whats right, but I'll sure tell you what aint":whistling:
How old do you believe (need?) the earth to be?

What age can you reconcile with your faith? 6,015? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 4,540,000,000?

Many devout Christians have managed to accept an old earth without diminishing their faith.

I think that I'll spinoff a related thread as well.

-ArtificialGrape

Snapper2
06-16-2011, 20:55
How old do you believe (need?) the earth to be?

What age can you reconcile with your faith? 6,015? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 4,540,000,000?

Many devout Christians have managed to accept an old earth without diminishing their faith.



-ArtificialGrape

Personally I respect what science gives to us. And it doesnt matter to me how old the earth might be. :dunno:

ArtificialGrape
06-16-2011, 20:58
Personally I respect what science gives to us. And it doesnt matter to me how old the earth might be. :dunno:

Good answer. :thumbsup:

muscogee
06-16-2011, 21:38
And what is wrong with never knowing evil? Do you need to know Dhamer's eating habits by watching him prepare a victim and devouring them in every gory second of the act? How, is knowing evil worthwhile? He was not punished for ignorance, but for willful disobedience. Because of that, as the leader of the earth, it was surrendered to Satan who took the form of a serpent. And he has been running amok ever since, causing disease and destruction while merrily blamming it all on God.


Like I originally stated, God gets a free pass. God is either on board with what Satan is doing or he is incapable of stopping him, or he does not exist.


I guess it must be nice to be able to rob banks and blame it on the police, and have people believe you.

You, this very day, choose your own fate, just as Adam chose his. However, Adam is saved in the same manner you have at your disposal, the sacrifice of that same God you malign.

Would you be tortured to death to save anyone? He did it to save everyone. Considering He created us, we rightly belong to Him. It is not just anyone who would be willing to endure what He did for something created.

Changing the subject again and again and again.

TreverSlyFox
06-16-2011, 21:42
How old do you believe (need?) the earth to be?

What age can you reconcile with your faith? 6,015? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 4,540,000,000?

Many devout Christians have managed to accept an old earth without diminishing their faith.

I think that I'll spinoff a related thread as well.

-ArtificialGrape


I don't have any problem with the earth being 4,540,000,000 years old nor do I have a problem with G_d creating the entire universe, earth and man in 6 days. Nor do I have a problem with the whole event having happened 6,015 years ago.

Since He created the laws everything runs by there is no reason why G_d could not create a fully formed universe and everything in it. Everything brought into existence just as if it had been running for billions of years and all the physical evidence that it had been running for billions of years.

The Idea and belief of a fully formed universe, and earth as a part of it, has been around for a long time so my belief isn't too far fetched and I'm Southern Baptist.

muscogee
06-16-2011, 21:52
The statement "good and evil" admits that there was evil(without dominion) in a good place(the garden). Why do you find God at fault when He was trying to keep someone ignorant of evil? God didnt have to tell Adam he was guilty, he experienced it.

I never wrote that God at fault when He was trying to keep someone ignorant of evil. God was at fault for punishing Adam for doing something he did not know was wrong.

Adam only knew that it was wrong after eating the fruit. Before that he could not know it was evil to disobey God or do anything else because he lacked the knowledge of good and evil.

Animal Mother
06-16-2011, 23:27
Ummmm.... with all due respect, I thought we were going to discuss the discipline(s) of actual science with regards to scientists and these so called contradictions occurring in the book of Genesis, Do you want to discuss science or the contradictions in Genesis? Those are two completely different topics.
which by the way, these photos you have posted on the thread, do they actually, irrefutably, and scientifically, show NEW stars forming and or new stars that are "in various states of formation?" They actually show show new stars forming and since it is a physical representation of a natural phenomenon I think we can say they scientifically show new stars forming. Irrefutably is a different matter since it, like falsification, has to be a possibility for any theory or observation. You could refute the position that these picture represent star formation by presenting a better explanation which fits the evidence available more completely, without resorting to invoking the supernatural. Good luck with that.

Animal Mother
06-16-2011, 23:44
I honestly believe that your simple minded regards to an 'expedient' is being taken far to seriously for a ride, from your personalized agenda, as real science indicates a diametrically opposing view. You keep saying this. What you don't do is provide any evidence to verify the claim. I can offer literally books full of evidence to the contrary and back them with thousands, if not tens of thousands, of peer reviewed journal articles on stellar formation.
In fact, real, actual science wholly controverts your assertions, Again the same assertion and again the same absence of any supporting facts.
within the confines of both the Book of Genesis and commonly accepted, non-perverted science. And again.
Categorically speaking, your assertions concerning star formation, and additionally as well as your laughable implication(s) that real science gives us proof that stellar/star evolution is a fact due to some photographic pinpoints of parts of our vast cosmos is a complete and total fairy tale based on the fact that no human eye, even with the help of a telescope, has ever witnessed a star's formation or "birth." This is simply false, I've posted two pictures and can post a number more if you'd like. You're looking at pictures of stars forming and then claiming it doesn't happen. There's a word for behavior like that.


Fingerprints from Rainbows

Mercury, September/October 2004 Table of Contents

by Ben Bova
spectrum
Courtesy of J. White

Astronomers are hunters, detectives who track down the elusive workings of nature. Their "suspects" and "witnesses" are the points of light in the sky that we call the stars. How do you interrogate a suspect that is light-years away from you? Even in the most powerful telescopes, all you can see of the stars are mere pinpoints of light. Telescopes allow us to see more stars, to peer deeper into the vast darkness. But each star remains a tiny pinpoint of light—except, of course, for the Sun. (http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/33_05/rainbows.html)[/QUOTE]

We present high resolution interferometric and single dish observations of molecular gas in the Serpens cluster-forming core. Star formation does not appear to be homogeneous throughout the core, but is localised in spatially- and kinematically-separated sub-clusters. The stellar (or proto-stellar) density in each of the sub-clusters is much higher than the mean for the entire Serpens cluster. This is the first observational evidence for the hierarchical fragmentation of proto-cluster cores suggested by cluster formation models. (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0005522)

Animal Mother
06-16-2011, 23:47
And what is wrong with never knowing evil? Do you need to know Dhamer's eating habits by watching him prepare a victim and devouring them in every gory second of the act? How, is knowing evil worthwhile? He was not punished for ignorance, but for willful disobedience. Because of that, as the leader of the earth, it was surrendered to Satan who took the form of a serpent. And he has been running amok ever since, causing disease and destruction while merrily blamming it all on God.

I guess it must be nice to be able to rob banks and blame it on the police, and have people believe you. You're saying we should blame it on Satan instead? Or should we be blaming it on Adam?
You, this very day, choose your own fate, just as Adam chose his. However, Adam is saved in the same manner you have at your disposal, the sacrifice of that same God you malign.

Would you be tortured to death to save anyone? He did it to save everyone. Considering He created us, we rightly belong to Him. It is not just anyone who would be willing to endure what He did for something created. If you were told you would undergo a day of abuse, or even torture, but that as a result everyone on Earth would be saved the same fate, would you do it?

Kingarthurhk
06-17-2011, 03:59
You're saying we should blame it on Satan instead? Or should we be blaming it on Adam?
If you were told you would undergo a day of abuse, or even torture, but that as a result everyone on Earth would be saved the same fate, would you do it?

I don't see why not. I've put my life on the line for strangers to save theirs. I don't see that as any different.

Satan tempted Adam and Eve. Eve succomed, and then Adam gave in to her.

Romans 5:12-18, "<SUP>12</SUP> Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

<SUP id=en-NIV-28061 class=versenum>13</SUP> To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. <SUP id=en-NIV-28062 class=versenum>14</SUP> Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
<SUP id=en-NIV-28063 class=versenum>15</SUP> But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! <SUP id=en-NIV-28064 class=versenum>16</SUP> Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. <SUP id=en-NIV-28065 class=versenum>17</SUP> For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! <SUP id=en-NIV-28066 class=versenum>18</SUP> Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. <SUP id=en-NIV-28067 class=versenum>19</SUP> For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

This outlines the problem and the solution.

Animal Mother
06-17-2011, 04:15
I don't see why not. I've put my life on the line for strangers to save theirs. I don't see that as any different. Then how is Jesus' act special or unique? Pretty much all non-sociopaths would probably answer the same way you did.
This outlines the problem and the solution. And this gives voice to the idea of dying with and for one's brothers:

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Is Henry V Christ's equal also?

Kingarthurhk
06-17-2011, 04:22
Then how is Jesus' act special or unique? Pretty much all non-sociopaths would probably answer the same way you did.
And this gives voice to the idea of dying with and for one's brothers:

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Is Henry V Christ's equal also?

No, Henry was not sinless, and didn't suffer any degredation, humility, and murder over something he created. If my some miracle Henry could create an ant, do you think he would go through all of what Jesus did to save that one ant? I suspect he wouldn't.

However, we are told what love is.

John 16:9-17, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. <SUP id=en-NIV-26710 class=versenum>10</SUP> If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. <SUP id=en-NIV-26711 class=versenum>11</SUP> I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. <SUP id=en-NIV-26712 class=versenum>12</SUP> My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. <SUP id=en-NIV-26713 class=versenum>13</SUP> Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. <SUP id=en-NIV-26714 class=versenum>14</SUP> You are my friends if you do what I command. <SUP id=en-NIV-26715 class=versenum>15</SUP> I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. <SUP id=en-NIV-26716 class=versenum>16</SUP> You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. <SUP id=en-NIV-26717 class=versenum>17</SUP> This is my command: Love each other."

Animal Mother
06-17-2011, 05:05
No, Henry was not sinless, and didn't suffer any degredation, humility, and murder over something he created. You're assuming Jesus created anything. I'm pointing out that this supposed willingness to sacrifice one's self for others isn't unique to Jesus. In fact, if Jesus is in fact an aspect of the trinity and had nothing to fear from death his actions are far less inspiring than a similar action by a human who has no such assurance.
If my some miracle Henry could create an ant, do you think he would go through all of what Jesus did to save that one ant? I suspect he wouldn't. Are you saying ants are saved the same as people? Does an ant have the cognitive ability to accept Christ as its savior?
However, we are told what love is. Which further reinforces that Christ's act wasn't unique. Are all those who sacrifice themselves for others, whether or not they're Christian, admitted to heaven?

ksg0245
06-17-2011, 09:43
Technically, Gen 1:16 states, He made the stars also. However, this is not a parable, this is a statement of fact detailing a certain event at a certain point/day in the creation process.

It is not a "statement of fact," it is an unsupported assertion based on an old book of mythology (unless you mean it's a fact the words appear in the bible, with which I think I can conditionally agree). In other words, it's a parable; a fictitious story illustrating a moral or religious principle. The closest thing to a fact in the story is that stars exist.

I'll start with your last point first, as I never stated such.

Are these not your words? They're posted under your profile id.

"As far as I'm concerned, current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway." (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17499139&postcount=48)

Emphasis mine.

I reiterate, all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves.

I asked for a link to the research you've found, not a reiteration of an assertion.

I've never said that research indicates they were created.

So "research" doesn't indicate they were created, but it indicates "stars cannot form by themselves"? That's pretty interesting; it seems contradictory.

Not to belabor the point, but these appear to be your words: "As far as I'm concerned, current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway." (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17499139&postcount=48)

Again, emphasis mine.

The last part of Gen 1:16 states they were created. Science/Research cannot disprove this assertion.

Animal Mother has provided evidence that refutes your claim more than once, but I would still like to ask for a link to some sort of peer reviewed material that supports your claim that "science/research cannot disprove [that stars were created]."

The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the star theory formation, shall we begin with the "big bang" explosion and the impossibility of stars to form at all?

“If the [big bang's] fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing.

At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass-density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars.”—*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation
and the Universe (1969), p. 62.

Well, first off, this 40 year old quote doesn't say anything about the impossibility of star formation, which is what I asked you to provide a reference for; it says, paraphrased, if certain parameters were different from what they actually are, stars wouldn't have formed.

Secondly, his name is "Robert H. Dicke" without the "y", which made it a little more difficult to track down the reference. Did the creationist website you cut and pasted this from get it wrong, or was it your own error?

So I'll ask again: could you please provide a link to the scientific research that indicates stars can't form by themselves?

But if you find something to contradict Gen 1:16, please let me know.

Yes, it's called "reality."

Have any deities been observed by any scientists?

achysklic
06-17-2011, 10:04
This thread should be voted the biggest turd thread! :faint:

Peace Warrior
06-17-2011, 19:33
Do you want to discuss science or the contradictions in Genesis? Those are two completely different topics.
They actually show show new stars forming and since it is a physical representation of a natural phenomenon I think we can say they scientifically show new stars forming. Irrefutably is a different matter since it, like falsification, has to be a possibility for any theory or observation. You could refute the position that these picture represent star formation by presenting a better explanation which fits the evidence available more completely, without resorting to invoking the supernatural. Good luck with that.
Please show ANY scientific research that would indicate these "star nursery nebulae" in the PHOTOS are actually condensing, contracting, "getting smaller," but NOT expanding.

So far as I know, ALL, I repeat ALL observations, including photographic observations show every last single one of these "clouds" to be expanding, and in fact, these so called stars nurseries are expanding at phenomenal rates of speed.

-am,- seriously, do you have anything else that would support your position? I mean do you have anything other than a metaphysical interpretation of some isolated photographs of our cosmos?

Over time, if you'll research it, the photographs I'm aware of show and indicate that these "gases and clouds" are EXPANDING! Expansion of these "gases and clouds" completely controvert both contemporary star formation theories as well as controverting the old paradigm and doctrines of star formation theory; additionally, all available scientific research advises that contraction, and not expansion, of gases/dust is absolutely necessary for ANY star to form, all by itself without the intervention of a Creator.

So understanding, this proposed star formation of yours, which you assert that the photos you've listed on this thread prove such a possibility, in actual fact undermine your assertions/position, and as far as I'm concerned, the photographs you posted also indicate that a super-natural intelligence had to be involved in star formation, which simply put, means that you have again failed to contradict the book of Genesis from the Holy Bible.

I am still waiting for a link or reference to support your claim.

wrenrj1
06-17-2011, 19:36
I blame Phil Collins.

Peace Warrior
06-17-2011, 19:46
I blame Phil Collins.
Is he a car hop? :dunno:

Animal Mother
06-17-2011, 21:31
Please show ANY scientific research that would indicate these "star nursery nebulae" in the PHOTOS are actually condensing, contracting, "getting smaller," but NOT expanding. Imagine how fun it would be if you either responded to what I wrote or produced any evidence to back your assertions. What does the expansion of a nebulae as a whole have to do with star formation at various points in the nebulae? Nebular expansion in no way disproves star formation, and might even be an expected result of young T Tauri type stars expelling gas and dust during their formation.
So far as I know, ALL, I repeat ALL observations, including photographic observations show every last single one of these "clouds" to be expanding, and in fact, these so called stars nurseries are expanding at phenomenal rates of speed. Which is in no way an issue for star formation, those same observations also see stars forming within the nebulae, a fact you seem to be ignoring.
-am,- seriously, do you have anything else that would support your position? Yes, I have all the scientific data supporting my position. The question continues to be what, other than bare assertions, support your claim that, "The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the star theory formation, shall we begin with the "big bang" explosion and the impossibility of stars to form at all?"

Will we be getting that "scientific evidence" anytime soon?

I mean do you have anything other than a metaphysical interpretation of some isolated photographs of our cosmos? Yes, I have analysis of infrared and radio wave emissions from thousands of observations, in addition to the thousands of optical photos. Hardly the isolated examples you attempt to characterize it as.
Over time, if you'll research it, the photographs I'm aware of show and indicate that these "gases and clouds" are EXPANDING! Expansion of these "gases and clouds" completely controvert both contemporary star formation theories as well as controverting the old paradigm and doctrines of star formation theory; additionally, all available scientific research advises that contraction, and not expansion, of gases/dust is absolutely necessary for ANY star to form, all by itself without the intervention of a Creator. The expansion of nebulae, as a whole, does none of these things. By way of analogy, a cloud of steam can expand even while parts of it are condensing into drops of water.
So understanding, this proposed star formation of yours, which you assert that the photos you've listed on this thread prove such a possibility, in actual fact undermine your assertions/position, and as far as I'm concerned, the photographs you posted also indicate that a super-natural intelligence had to be involved in star formation, which simply put, means that you have again failed to contradict the book of Genesis from the Holy Bible. You are, once again, completely wrong.
I am still waiting for a link or reference to support your claim. Sure, here's yet another (http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/outreach/Edu/sform.html). When will we be getting a link or reference to support all your claims?

ArtificialGrape
06-17-2011, 23:26
Please show ANY scientific research that would indicate these "star nursery nebulae" in the PHOTOS are actually condensing, contracting, "getting smaller," but NOT expanding...

I am still waiting for a link or reference to support your claim.

I'll start with two peer reviewed and published articles:

Gravitational Collapse and Filament Formation: Comparison with the Pipe Nebula (http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2018)
The results presented in this work support the idea that molecular clouds are in a general state of global collapse, suggested more than 35 years ago by Goldreich & Kwan (1974).

The Birth of Molecular Clouds: Formation of Atomic Precursors in Colliding Flows (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605435)

A combination of dynamical and thermal instabilities breaks up coherent flows efficiently, seeding the small-scale non-linear density perturbations necessary for local gravitational collapse and thus allowing (close to) instantaneous star formation

Here's a quick search that will yield 45 peer reviewed and published articles (http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+proplyds/0/1/0/all/0/1).

Now will you be providing any peer reviewed citations to support your claims?

-ArtificialGrape

Kingarthurhk
06-18-2011, 01:39
Science at work trying to understand God's handiwork:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9SlYS77Pdxg/SjaUzRGHl5I/AAAAAAAACgw/vdwTZ55wVM8/s400/blind.men.elephant.JPG

Animal Mother
06-18-2011, 03:36
Science at work trying to understand God's handiwork:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9SlYS77Pdxg/SjaUzRGHl5I/AAAAAAAACgw/vdwTZ55wVM8/s400/blind.men.elephant.JPG Except that scientists aren't isolated and blind, so they're able to compare their findings and reach a unified conclusion.

Kingarthurhk
06-18-2011, 07:29
Except that scientists aren't isolated and blind, so they're able to compare their findings and reach a unified conclusion.

In the context of a finite intellect and a lack of complete information, I feel this is a fitting analogy.

Animal Mother
06-18-2011, 08:21
In the context of a finite intellect and a lack of complete information, I feel this is a fitting analogy. I feel it's an attempt to avoid the conversation we were previously having. Is your solution to not having complete information and having a finite intellect to simply stop investigating and learning?

ArtificialGrape
06-18-2011, 10:18
I am still waiting for a link or reference to support your claim.

I'll start with two peer reviewed and published articles:

Gravitational Collapse and Filament Formation: Comparison with the Pipe Nebula (http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2018)
The results presented in this work support the idea that molecular clouds are in a general state of global collapse, suggested more than 35 years ago by Goldreich & Kwan (1974).

The Birth of Molecular Clouds: Formation of Atomic Precursors in Colliding Flows (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605435)

A combination of dynamical and thermal instabilities breaks up coherent flows efficiently, seeding the small-scale non-linear density perturbations necessary for local gravitational collapse and thus allowing (close to) instantaneous star formation

Here's a quick search that will yield 45 peer reviewed and published articles (http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+proplyds/0/1/0/all/0/1).

Now will you be providing any peer reviewed citations to support your claims?

-ArtificialGrape

Here are a few more peer-reviewed, published scientific articles if you've made it through the earlier list:

The physical scale of the far-infrared emission in the most luminous submillimetre galaxies - II. Evidence for merger-driven star formation (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.407.1268Y)

Evidence for the Turbulent Formation of Stars (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AIPC..713...59V)

Observational evidence for supernova-induced star formation - Canis Major R1 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...217..473H)

Evidence of a star formation burst in a spheroidal dwarf galaxy (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AN....306..257S)

Let us know when you'll be presenting your contrary evidence.

-ArtificialGrape

achysklic
06-18-2011, 10:18
Did I read the description correctly, that this translation only has 49 books? What's up with that?

Because many of the books should have been groouped together to form 1 book like the minor prophets. This should help explain it.

http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/InfoPack1/1-1.pdf

Tilley
06-18-2011, 13:26
I feel it's an attempt to avoid the conversation we were previously having. Is your solution to not having complete information and having a finite intellect to simply stop investigating and learning?

I believe what he was insinuating was that in the sum total of infinite knowledge, we are the same as the folks shown below...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9SlYS77Pdxg/SjaUzRGHl5I/AAAAAAAACgw/vdwTZ55wVM8/s400/blind.men.elephant.JPG

...just throwing out guesses! :upeyes:

Why can't you EVER address the issue of sciences limitations AND ineptness in the face of infinite knowledge.

Peace Warrior
06-18-2011, 19:10
Imagine how fun it would be if you either responded to what I wrote or produced any evidence to back your assertions. What does the expansion of a nebulae as a whole have to do with star formation at various points in the nebulae? Nebular expansion in no way disproves star formation, and might even be an expected result of young T Tauri type stars expelling gas and dust during their formation. ...
Wait a minute. You advised that you wanted me to respond by presenting a better explanation which fits the evidence available more completely, without resorting to invoking the supernatural. (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17506061#post17506061)

Let's review, your "evidence" to contradict the verse in Genesis, which in part states, "...He [Elohim] created the stars also," is wholly based upon interpretations of a couple of photographs.

I then offered actual scientific evidence, not an interpretation of photograph, explaining that all OBSERVED nebulae are ONLY expanding. Even so, you then wisely first embrace this perfectly well known fact of all known nebulae are expanding, and offer the added postulate that even though entire nebulae are observed expanding, but NOT contracting, MAYBE in some isolated places (or 'spots') they 'might be' contracting and forming new stars.
I love to see the physics and math used to support your postulate. :supergrin:

Additionally, with all due respect, please advise as to why you require me to use explanations that fit the evidence more completely when you will not hold yourself to the same standard? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17506061#post17506061) You see, the photographs you've offered are NOT evidence of stars forming within the confines of your own requirement. Honestly, you are welcome to keep your personal INTERPRETATION of these photos, but please don't think that they are evidence enough to contradict anything we can read in Genesis.

Peace Warrior
06-18-2011, 19:44
I'll start with two peer reviewed and published articles:

Gravitational Collapse and Filament Formation: Comparison with the Pipe Nebula (http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2018)
The results presented in this work support the idea that molecular clouds are in a general state of global collapse, suggested more than 35 years ago by Goldreich & Kwan (1974).
Recent models of molecular cloud formation and evolution suggest that such clouds are dynamic and generally exhibit gravitational collapse. ...
I agree that an evo's model for molecular cloud formation, based on an evolutionary (big bang) type origin, would have to at the very least SUGGEST gravitational collapse occurring, but suggesting that this is what occurs is not evidence enough to prove it, and surely it is not enough to contradict Genesis.

The Birth of Molecular Clouds: Formation of Atomic Precursors in Colliding Flows (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605435)

A combination of dynamical and thermal instabilities breaks up coherent flows efficiently, seeding the small-scale non-linear density perturbations necessary for local gravitational collapse and thus allowing (close to) instantaneous star formation
Oh yeah, the "swiss cheese like MCC" paper

Now will you be providing any peer reviewed citations to support your claims?
No, I'll just use yours as they are enough.

-ArtificialGrape
If I'm not mistaken, the latter link you offer is the one that indicates it might take up to 20 "localized" supernovae to present the conditions necessary to create one star. Losing up to 20 stars to make 1 star? :dunno:

Anyway, please read through the entire paper and not merely an excerpt from the abstract. I'm sure you will agree that we both can find what are looking for as far as supporting our respective positions. Simply put, it is not proof and surely it is not an observation of a star forming. (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.2018v1.pdf)

Animal Mother
06-18-2011, 23:17
Wait a minute. You advised that you wanted me to respond by presenting a better explanation which fits the evidence available more completely, without resorting to invoking the supernatural. (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17506061#post17506061) That would be lovely, will you be doing anytime soon?
Let's review, your "evidence" to contradict the verse in Genesis, which in part states, "...He [Elohim] created the stars also," is wholly based upon interpretations of a couple of photographs. No, my evidence is observation of star formation, both in the visible spectrum and across the x-ray and infrared.
I then offered actual scientific evidence, not an interpretation of photograph, explaining that all OBSERVED nebulae are ONLY expanding. You offered the claim, you didn't provide any evidence that it is true. If you'd care to offer actual evidence I'd be more than happy to see it.
Even so, you then wisely first embrace this perfectly well known fact of all known nebulae are expanding, and offer the added postulate that even though entire nebulae are observed expanding, but NOT contracting, MAYBE in some isolated places (or 'spots') they 'might be' contracting and forming new stars. Not might be, but are. It has been observed, it is happening. Unlike yourself, I've offered evidence in support of my position in this matter. If only you'd do the same.
I love to see the physics and math used to support your postulate. :supergrin: Go right ahead, review any of the papers on the topic which have been offered in support of my position.
Additionally, with all due respect, please advise as to why you require me to use explanations that fit the evidence more completely when you will not hold yourself to the same standard? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17506061#post17506061) You see, the photographs you've offered are NOT evidence of stars forming within the confines of your own requirement. Honestly, you are welcome to keep your personal INTERPRETATION of these photos, but please don't think that they are evidence enough to contradict anything we can read in Genesis. You'll have to explain how the photos aren't evidence of star formation when every astronomer and astrophysicist working in the field agree that's exactly what they are. As you said, I'd love to see the physics and math used to support your contention. Of course, that would require you producing actual evidence and we all know that's not going to happen.

Animal Mother
06-18-2011, 23:20
Why can't you EVER address the issue of sciences limitations AND ineptness in the face of infinite knowledge. Produce some infinite knowledge and you might have an argument. I've never denied the limits on our scientific knowledge, but it is the best tool available and a far better option than simply declaring things can never be understood and ceasing investigation.

Animal Mother
06-18-2011, 23:36
I agree that an evo's model for molecular cloud formation, based on an evolutionary (big bang) type origin, would have to at the very least SUGGEST gravitational collapse occurring, but suggesting that this is what occurs is not evidence enough to prove it, and surely it is not enough to contradict Genesis. And what would be enough to contradict Genesis, if direct observation isn't sufficient?
If I'm not mistaken, the latter link you offer is the one that indicates it might take up to 20 "localized" supernovae to present the conditions necessary to create one star. Losing up to 20 stars to make 1 star? :dunno: You are mistaken, as it says nothing of the sort, but then that's hardly unusual for you, is it?

ArtificialGrape
06-18-2011, 23:51
I agree that an evo's model for molecular cloud formation, based on an evolutionary (big bang) type origin, would have to at the very least SUGGEST gravitational collapse occurring, but suggesting that this is what occurs is not evidence enough to prove it, and surely it is not enough to contradict Genesis.


If I'm not mistaken, the latter link you offer is the one that indicates it might take up to 20 "localized" supernovae to present the conditions necessary to create one star. Losing up to 20 stars to make 1 star? :dunno:

Anyway, please read through the entire paper and not merely an excerpt from the abstract. I'm sure you will agree that we both can find what are looking for as far as supporting our respective positions. Simply put, it is not proof and surely it is not an observation of a star forming. (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.2018v1.pdf)

I went back and reviewed the entire thread. You have posted 10 times (up through the quoted message above), but we'll call it 8 disregarding 1 for the purpose of tagging, and 1 reply to a Phil Collins reference.

You have stated:
"all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves"
and
"So far as I know, ALL, I repeat ALL observations, including photographic observations show every last single one of these "clouds" to be expanding, and in fact, these so called stars nurseries are expanding at phenomenal rates of speed."

You have been provided a list of peer-reviewed, published scientific articles explaining various ways that stars can form -- your personal incredulity is irrelevant.

You have been repeatedly asked for citations of evidence for your position. You have referenced Genesis, and an article quoting a philosopher and his observations 175 years ago.

It appears that your "research" has not taken you far from Genesis, but please either present peer-reviewed evidence supporting your position, or admit that your faith precludes you from accepting any amount of evidence that appears to contradict your interpretation of Genesis.

-ArtificialGrape

Peace Warrior
06-19-2011, 12:03
...No, my evidence is observation of star formation, both in the visible spectrum and across the x-ray and infrared. ...
No, your "evidence" is merely a metaphysical interpretation of a couple of photographs; however, if you are going to slice and dice my post(s) and purposely take half-sentences out of context in order to avoid rationally discussing this issue, then I won't be playing your useless, argumentative games. I highly suggest you get a life as mentally you seem to "need something" that's more fulfilling than can be gained on an internet forum.

I wish you luck in your pursuit of personal therapy.

Peace Warrior
06-19-2011, 12:09
I went back and reviewed the entire thread. You have posted 10 times (up through the quoted message above), but we'll call it 8 disregarding 1 for the purpose of tagging, and 1 reply to a Phil Collins reference.

You have stated:
"all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves"
and
"So far as I know, ALL, I repeat ALL observations, including photographic observations show every last single one of these "clouds" to be expanding, and in fact, these so called stars nurseries are expanding at phenomenal rates of speed."

You have been provided a list of peer-reviewed, published scientific articles explaining various ways that stars can form -- your personal incredulity is irrelevant.

You have been repeatedly asked for citations of evidence for your position. You have referenced Genesis, and an article quoting a philosopher and his observations 175 years ago.

It appears that your "research" has not taken you far from Genesis, but please either present peer-reviewed evidence supporting your position, or admit that your faith precludes you from accepting any amount of evidence that appears to contradict your interpretation of Genesis.

-ArtificialGrape
How do you not get it? The photographs on this thread, and the links to the papers you have provided do NOT prove spontaneous star formation.

Additionally, the papers you've linked to have within riddled throughout them keys terms such as "suggest," "might," "could be," "probably," "we believe," "could allow" et cetera.

Moreover, the papers you have linked to have within them internal arguments and admissions to the fact that other scientists strongly disagree with the papers postulates and or positions.

I'm sorry, I do not see proof of instantaneous star formation. However, I will still accept any more offerings to support your position.

Peace Warrior
06-19-2011, 12:12
The Birth of Molecular Clouds: Formation of Atomic Precursors in Colliding Flows (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605435)

-ArtificialGrape
AG,

Have you even taken the time to read this paper and not just its abstract? In some of their models they do not include the effects of gravity and or magnetism, which concerning the latter even some creationists believe SHOULD be present.

Peace Warrior
06-19-2011, 12:44
...You'll have to explain how the photos aren't evidence of star formation when every astronomer and astrophysicist working in the field agree that's exactly what they are. ...
You're wrong again. How do you take the position of thinking you actually know, beyond all doubt, what every astronomer and every astrophysicist in the world believes? Have you been drinking maybe?

Are you sure you don't want to amend this statement before you appear to entirely consumed with either idiocy or an unfailing allegiance to your position regardless of actual facts? I understand you don't believe the Book of Genesis, but this statement from you goes way beyond even a common, secular rationale.

Animal Mother
06-19-2011, 21:26
No, your "evidence" is merely a metaphysical interpretation of a couple of photographs; No, it isn't. It's a scientific analysis of thousands of photographs and other data from across the spectrum and from a massive number of examples.
however, if you are going to slice and dice my post(s) and purposely take half-sentences out of context in order to avoid rationally discussing this issue, then I won't be playing your useless, argumentative games. I highly suggest you get a life as mentally you seem to "need something" that's more fulfilling than can be gained on an internet forum. We've already reached the point where you feign offense in an effort to escape the discussion? It usually takes a lot longer for that to happen. I haven't altered your posts in anyway and have only broken them up in the effort to directly respond to your absurd assertions.
I wish you luck in your pursuit of personal therapy. Does this mean you won't be providing any evidence to substaniate your claim that, "The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the star theory formation, shall we begin with the "big bang" explosion and the impossibility of stars to form at all? "

Somehow, I'm not surprised at all.

Animal Mother
06-19-2011, 21:33
I'm sorry, I do not see proof of instantaneous star formation. However, I will still accept any more offerings to support your position.It isn't surprising that you don't see proof of instantaneous star formation, since the only one making such a claim is you and you are apparently utterly incapable of providing proof for your claims. The position of scientists is that star formation takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years, and there is ample evidence in support of that position despite your claims to the contrary.

Animal Mother
06-19-2011, 21:38
You're wrong again. How do you take the position of thinking you actually know, beyond all doubt, what every astronomer and every astrophysicist in the world believes? Have you been drinking maybe? I don't know beyond all doubt, nor did I ever claim to. I do know what has been published in the scientific literature, which supports my position and my claim, but if you have evidence to the contrary feel free to share it. Of course, we all know that's not going to happen, don't we?

As for the personal attacks and insults, they're just further indicators that you realize your position is completely without merit and can't be defended using facts, so I'll forgive your childish petulance.
Are you sure you don't want to amend this statement before you appear to entirely consumed with either idiocy or an unfailing allegiance to your position regardless of actual facts? I understand you don't believe the Book of Genesis, but this statement from you goes way beyond even a common, secular rationale. Please, please, please share some actual facts. If nothing else, it'll be a change of pace.

ArtificialGrape
06-20-2011, 00:13
Peace Warrior,
you still have not provided anything more than your personal claims and skepticism. If the peer-reviewed and published studies that I have provided are so riddled with holes, then it should be easy enough for you to provide research that refutes them.

Peace Warrior: "all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves"
Any chance at all that you would care to share this "research" that brought you to this conclusion?


Peace Warrior: "So far as I know, ALL, I repeat ALL observations, including photographic observations show every last single one of these "clouds" to be expanding, and in fact, these so called stars nurseries are expanding at phenomenal rates of speed."

Given that "ALL" observations support your position, perhaps you could provide pointers to a few peer-reviewed, published studies supporting this claim.

-ArtificialGrape

Peace Warrior
06-21-2011, 15:39
Peace Warrior,
you still have not provided anything more than your personal claims and skepticism. If the peer-reviewed and published studies that I have provided are so riddled with holes, then it should be easy enough for you to provide research that refutes them. ...
The research you provides kind of refutes itself, or at the very least does give observational evidence enough to contradict Genesis, which is what this thrwad is about by the way.
Peace Warrior: "all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves"
Any chance at all that you would care to share this "research" that brought you to this conclusion? ...
Sure, here are 16 'fatal flaws' and 20 more problems with the actual science on this matter. (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/02-star2.htm)
Hope this will do for starters.

I note, Genesis 1:16 states, "...He made the stars also." You haven't provided anything to disprove this assertion. I completely agree that this is faith on my part, but if it were NOT true, by this time (e.g., 2011), surely observational science would have something more conclusive to offer in order to controvert this Biblical assertion.

Peace Warrior
06-21-2011, 15:54
I don't know beyond all doubt, nor did I ever claim to. ...
Look, if you're going to be liberal with the truth as to deny what you posted, and then go on to play "lawyer ball" to the nth degree, I simply will not be able to oblige your extremist cognitive dissonance. Everyone can make a mistake in their zealousness and emotions. Maybe you made a mistake as well?

Or maybe you've forgotten or can't find your post with the assertion that "...every astronomer and astrophysicist working in the field agree that's exactly what they are." (emphasis mine) Here ya go, it's the post you made that states you know what that every astronomer and physicists agree to about these photos. (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17514714#post17514714)

ArtificialGrape
06-21-2011, 18:06
The research you provides kind of refutes itself, or at the very least does give observational evidence enough to contradict Genesis, which is what this thrwad is about by the way.

Sure, here are 16 'fatal flaws' and 20 more problems with the actual science on this matter. (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/02-star2.htm)
Hope this will do for starters.

I note, Genesis 1:16 states, "...He made the stars also." You haven't provided anything to disprove this assertion. I completely agree that this is faith on my part, but if it were NOT true, by this time (e.g., 2011), surely observational science would have something more conclusive to offer in order to controvert this Biblical assertion.
Your refenced website doesn't come close. The discussion has been about science. You have repeatedly been asked to provide science to backup your assertions. Previously you had cited Genesis and an article quoting a philosopher from 175 years ago. To that you have now added a pointer to a creationist website which only cites their own book (that they would be glad to sell you).

If all of your "research" supports your assertions, then you should be able to easily provide references to some peer-reviewed published research.

Let us know.

Animal Mother
06-21-2011, 20:41
Look, if you're going to be liberal with the truth as to deny what you posted, and then go on to play "lawyer ball" to the nth degree, I simply will not be able to oblige your extremist cognitive dissonance. Everyone can make a mistake in their zealousness and emotions. Maybe you made a mistake as well?

Or maybe you've forgotten or can't find your post with the assertion that "...every astronomer and astrophysicist working in the field agree that's exactly what they are." (emphasis mine) Here ya go, it's the post you made that states you know what that every astronomer and physicists agree to about these photos. (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17514714#post17514714) We've reached the point in the discussion where you resort to nonsensical word combinations and arguments over semantics? Already?

You have claimed that, "The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the star theory formation, shall we begin with the "big bang" explosion and the impossibility of stars to form at all? "

Why don't you provide some evidence to back that claim, from the scientific literature as has been requested.

Once you've done that, we can discuss my assertion regarding the position of astronomers and astrophysicists working in the field.

Or is it that you're trying to distract everyone from the fact that you can't support your claim by trying to attack my assertions, which have already been substantiated with reference to the same scientific literature you appear to be avoiding?

ksg0245
06-22-2011, 08:41
Look, if you're going to be liberal with the truth as to deny what you posted, and then go on to play "lawyer ball" to the nth degree, I simply will not be able to oblige your extremist cognitive dissonance. Everyone can make a mistake in their zealousness and emotions. Maybe you made a mistake as well?

You're aware that "I don't know beyond all doubt, nor did I ever claim to" isn't inconsistent with "every astronomer and astrophysicist working in the field agree that's exactly what they are," right?

Or maybe you've forgotten or can't find your post with the assertion that "...every astronomer and astrophysicist working in the field agree that's exactly what they are." (emphasis mine) Here ya go, it's the post you made that states you know what that every astronomer and physicists agree to about these photos. (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17514714#post17514714)

You claimed "As far as I'm concerned, current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway." (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17499139&postcount=48) You then, almost immediately, claimed "I never stated such [that there is research demonstrating the impossibility of stars forming by themselves, and research indicating they were "created"]. I reiterate, all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves. I've never said that research indicates they were created. The last part of Gen 1:16 states they were created. Science/Research cannot disprove this assertion." (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17503275&postcount=60) and "The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the star theory formation, shall we begin with the "big bang" explosion and the impossibility of stars to form at all?" (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17503275&postcount=60) You then said 'I thought we were going to discuss the discipline(s) of actual science with regards to scientists and these so called contradictions occurring in the book of Genesis..." (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17504169&postcount=65) You followed all that up with "In fact, real, actual science wholly controverts your assertions, within the confines of both the Book of Genesis and commonly accepted, non-perverted science." (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17504230&postcount=66)

So do you have research demonstrating the impossibility of stars forming by themselves, and research indicating they were "created"? Do you have scientific evidence overwhelmingly against the star theory formation? If so, please present this "real, actual, commonly accepted, non-perverted science" that "wholly controverts" "the star theory formation."

Peace Warrior
06-22-2011, 12:14
You're aware that "I don't know beyond all doubt, nor did I ever claim to" isn't inconsistent with "every astronomer and astrophysicist working in the field agree that's exactly what they are," right? ...
HELLO!?! This is why I posted what you quoted. Wow... :whistling: Please continue reading the thread...

Peace Warrior
06-22-2011, 12:30
We've reached the point in the discussion where you resort to nonsensical word combinations and arguments over semantics? Already? ...
Semantics? -lol- Not hardly -am.-


For the last time, you stated, "...every astronomer and astrophysicist working in the field agree that's exactly what they are." Okay, at least as far as I'm concerned, I see this statement/assertion from you as being unequivocal, or 'beyond all doubt' if you will, as as far as you're assertion is concerned. (That is unless you typically go around posting content on internet threads while making such categorical statements utilizing an equivocal rational. Is this what you did?)

Now, if I am wrong in my perception, then by all means, please do tell what you actually meant when you used the word, EVERY; after all, at least to me, it seems that your using the word, EVERY, is indicative that not even a single one (i.e., astronomer or physicist) is left out of your assertion, which seems to painting with a HUGELY broad brush for the subject matter, but this last stratagem of yours trying to evoke the use of semantics, on my part, is wholly and completely ridiculous.

EVERY (pun intended) one can make a mistake and or make broad sweeping generalizations that aren't even remotely true. Maybe you can admit that this is what you did?

Peace Warrior
06-22-2011, 12:31
Do you want to discuss science or the contradictions in Genesis? Those are two completely different topics.
...
I'm here to see "your" science show a contradiction in Genesis (the thread's topic BTW), which you haven't been able to do yet.

Animal Mother
06-22-2011, 12:34
Semantics? -lol- Not hardly -am.-


For the last time, you stated, "...every astronomer and astrophysicist working in the field agree that's exactly what they are." Okay, at least as far as I'm concerned, I see this statement/assertion from you as being unequivocal, or 'beyond all doubt' if you will, as as far as you're assertion is concerned. (That is unless you typically go around posting content on internet threads while making such categorical statements utilizing an equivocal rational. Is this what you did?)

Now, if I am wrong in my perception, then by all means, please do tell what you actually meant when you used the word, EVERY; after all, at least to me, it seems that your using the word, EVERY, is indicative that not even a single one (i.e., astronomer or physicist) is left out of your assertion, which seems to painting with a HUGELY broad brush for the subject matter, but this last stratagem of yours trying to evoke the use of semantics, on my part, is wholly and completely ridiculous.

EVERY (pun intended) one can make a mistake and or make broad sweeping generalizations that aren't even remotely true. Maybe you can admit that this is what you did? Did you miss the modifier which followed immediately? I don't know how, considering you've quoted multiple times now.

But back to the original point that you're trying to obscure with your absurd objections, you've claimed, "The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the star theory formation, shall we begin with the "big bang" explosion and the impossibility of stars to form at all? "

Are you going to be presenting any evidence in support of this contention or are you simply going to feign further offense and continue to attempt to divert the conversation?

Animal Mother
06-22-2011, 12:43
I'm here to see "your" science show a contradiction in Genesis (the thread's topic BTW), which you haven't been able to do yet. I don't need science to do that, the text itself does it quite well enough as was discussed in the first few posts of the thread.

As for science and a literal interpretation of Genesis, star formation is only one area where a literal reading is inconsistent with observation. I know you deny this, but unless and until you present some actual evidence in support of that claim, I hope you'll understand why it is ignored.

ksg0245
06-22-2011, 12:49
HELLO!?! This is why I posted what you quoted. Wow... :whistling: Please continue reading the thread...

Did you read what I wrote? It sure doesn't appear so, because what I said was that the first statement IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH the other, so your objecting to saying both things MAKES NO SENSE. "Not inconsistent with" means each concept is compatible with the other. Anyone can say something like "everybody agrees this is the case" and not contradict themselves by also saying "I've never claimed to know beyond all doubt;" both ideas can be held simultaneously with no cognitive dissonance. You can honestly say stuff like "I don't claim to know beyond all doubt, but everybody agrees this is what the evidence shows."

Now that we've addressed that little diversion of yours, do you have ANY research demonstrating the impossibility of stars forming by themselves, and research indicating they were "created," as you've repeatedly claimed to have? Do you have ANY scientific evidence overwhelmingly against the star theory formation, as you've repeatedly claimed to have? If so, please present this "real, actual, commonly accepted, non-perverted science" that "wholly controverts" "the star theory formation." They're simple requests; why refuse provide the evidence you claim to have?

Peace Warrior
06-22-2011, 12:52
... But back to the original point that you're trying to obscure with your absurd objections, you've claimed, "The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the star theory formation, shall we begin with the "big bang" explosion and the impossibility of stars to form at all? "

Are you going to be presenting any evidence in support of this contention or are you simply going to feign further offense and continue to attempt to divert the conversation?
Done and done. Stop changing the subject.
Did you miss the modifier which followed immediately? I don't know how, considering you've quoted multiple times now. ...
Well then, if it is my interpretation, then by all means, do tell. Waiting...

Peace Warrior
06-22-2011, 12:53
Did you read what I wrote? It sure doesn't appear so, because what I said was that the first statement IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH the other, so your objecting to saying both things MAKES NO SENSE. "Not inconsistent with" means each concept is compatible with the other. Anyone can say something like "everybody agrees this is the case" and not contradict themselves by also saying "I've never claimed to know beyond all doubt;" both ideas can be held simultaneously with no cognitive dissonance. You can honestly say stuff like "I don't claim to know beyond all doubt, but everybody agrees this is what the evidence shows."

Now that we've addressed that little diversion of yours, do you have ANY research demonstrating the impossibility of stars forming by themselves, and research indicating they were "created," as you've repeatedly claimed to have? Do you have ANY scientific evidence overwhelmingly against the star theory formation, as you've repeatedly claimed to have? If so, please present this "real, actual, commonly accepted, non-perverted science" that "wholly controverts" "the star theory formation." They're simple requests; why refuse provide the evidence you claim to have?
Done and done... sheesh... :faint:

Peace Warrior
06-22-2011, 12:54
... I hope you'll understand why it is ignored.
Quid pro quo.

Animal Mother
06-22-2011, 16:10
Done and done. Stop changing the subject. No, it hasn't been, unless you still believe that simply declaring something makes it true. You've been asked for evidence, from the scientific literature, for your claims. You've offered nothing of the sort. You're simply being dishonest at this point.
Well then, if it is my interpretation, then by all means, do tell. Waiting... I claimed that all astronomers and astrophysisicts working in the field agree that stars form through purely natural processes. Based on the published work, I stand by that assertion.

You asked for evidence of this formation, I've provided both papers on the topic and photos of the formation in progress.

You've claimed to have evidence that such formation is impossible, you have still not produced that evidence.

Animal Mother
06-22-2011, 16:12
Quid pro quo. I've produced evidence, you have not. As always, you've offered your own unsupported claims and nonsensical creationist web pages, not evidence.

It's all disappointing, if not unexpected at this point.

ksg0245
06-22-2011, 16:16
Done and done... sheesh... :faint:

Speaking of "sheesh..."

Where have you provided the requested evidence? In that pdf you linked to? Where in that article is the research demonstrating the impossibility of stars forming by themselves, and research indicating they were "created"? Please be specific, because I'm unable to find it there. Maybe pull a quote or something, rather than trying to make people guess what you had in mind.

Or did you mean that "Creation-Evolution Encyclopeia" you linked to? All I see there are a bunch of unsupported assertions and flat-out errors (and I'm being generous); if that's where your scientific evidence is, again, could you please specify, because what I see doesn't qualify.

Japle
06-22-2011, 17:26
What might have been an interesting thread has now degenerated into a pissing contest and one of the contestants doesn't have the necessary equipment to compete.

Peace Warrior
06-22-2011, 20:07
... I claimed that all astronomers and astrophysisicts working in the field agree that stars form through purely natural processes. Based on the published work, I stand by that assertion ...
Okay, you didn't utilize the phrase "based on the published work" in your previous post, and so understanding, will you at least admit that you forgot to mention this most important, conditional caveat to your original statement?

Animal Mother
06-22-2011, 22:05
Okay, you didn't utilize the phrase "based on the published work" in your previous post, and so understanding, will you at least admit that you forgot to mention this most important, conditional caveat to your original statement? I didn't include it in my original post, because I didn't think anyone would conclude I meant that I had personal knowledge of what every astronomer and astrophysicist has concluded about stellar formation. When you made exactly that erroneous conclusion I clarified my statement in post 114, that the only way I could know what scientists hold true is to review the published literature.

That being resolved, will you be sharing that evidence of the impossibility of star formation?

Peace Warrior
06-25-2011, 02:05
I didn't include it in my original post, because I didn't think anyone would conclude I meant that I had personal knowledge of what every astronomer and astrophysicist has concluded about stellar formation. When you made exactly that erroneous conclusion I clarified my statement in post 114, that the only way I could know what scientists hold true is to review the published literature. ...
No, in post #114 you simply played your version of lawyer ball based on your usual "legalese" reading of posts that disagree with your thinking and or belief system. To simplify the entire matter: Then you agree that EVERY astronomer and astrophysicist may not believe as you do as well as may not agree to the "citations" you offer in this thread?
... That being resolved, will you be sharing that evidence of the impossibility of star formation?
Let us.
No, it hasn't been, unless you still believe that simply declaring something makes it true. You've been asked for evidence, from the scientific literature, for your claims. You've offered nothing of the sort. You're simply being dishonest at this point. ...
I offered a BEVY of citations that have been diligently, and quite thoroughly as well, categorized for the reader. Maybe you just refuse to peruse (hit the link) the scientific literature/content I provided? In any event, a refusal to look at/investigate something, on your part, is not in any way dishonesty, on my part, as far as providing it to you.

Animal Mother
06-25-2011, 04:02
No, in post #114 you simply played your version of lawyer ball based on your usual "legalese" reading of posts that disagree with your thinking and or belief system. You are, as you so regularly demonstrate, utterly wrong. I simply clarified my position, for those who are incapable of understanding normal written English.
To simplify the entire matter: Then you agree that EVERY astronomer and astrophysicist may not believe as you do as well as may not agree to the "citations" you offer in this thread? Yes, I agree that there may be one or two rogue individuals with degrees in astronomy or astrophysics who are not working in the field and who dispute the accepted model of stellar formation, but you will hopefully agree that none of those hypothetical individual have published their work in the scientific literature.
Let us. Oh, if only you would, share your evidence that is. Sadly, it seems that once again you won't be doing as has been asked repeatedly.
I offered a BEVY of citations that have been diligently, and quite thoroughly as well, categorized for the reader. No, you haven't. You haven't offered a single link to a peer reviewed publication.
Maybe you just refuse to peruse (hit the link) the scientific literature/content I provided? Are you talking about the link to the www.pathlights.com page? An add for a creationist book, which doesn't even provide any evidence is your evidence for your position? Do you really expect anyone to accept that as evidence in support of your position?
In any event, a refusal to look at/investigate something, on your part, is not in any way dishonesty, on my part, as far as providing it to you. I asked you to provide evidence, from the scientific literature. You have not done so, yet when asked again to provide that evidence you replied, "Done and done." Which is simply dishonest.

If you truly intend to rely upon this website as the foundation for your position, explicitly state the constraints which would prevent star formation. Things like, "There is not enough evolutionary time for the stars to be formed. The theory requires that they all explode themselves into existence, and then stop exploding just before their light could be sent for us to see." doesn't disprove stellar formation. Additionally, it is simply false as no theories of star formation that I'm aware of require any such thing. Finally, just because you found a web page that asserts something doesn't make that assertion true, any more than you asserting something makes it true. I realize you don't grasp this concept but it has been explained to you before. If you (or your website of choice) is going to claim, "A physical barrier exists between the smallest and largest stars." you'll need to both explain what the hell that actually means and present some evidence that it is actually true.