Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[Shamalam]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You see this is where you are confused: Genesis 1:1a "In the beginning."

Science: " In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang."

The bible says the universe had beginning, science says the universe had a beginning.

I see no contradiction. Try again.

You left out the best part of Genesis 1:1!

God created the heavens and the earth.

And there we have our disagreement. Shall we move on to Genesis 1:7?

7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8 God called the dome Sky

Ahh, so the sky is blue because it's just made of water! Science would certainly have a hard time refuting this. Let's continue!

16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars

The moon is now a light source! I'm sure science will say something about how it simply reflects the light from the sun, but can we REALLY be sure about that? It's not as if any humans have ever set foot on the moon to test this theory.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You left out the best part of Genesis 1:1!



And there we have our disagreement. Shall we move on to Genesis 1:7?



Ahh, so the sky is blue because it's just made of water! Science would certainly have a hard time refuting this. Let's continue!



The moon is now a light source! I'm sure science will say something about how it simply reflects the light from the sun, but can we REALLY be sure about that? It's not as if any humans have ever set foot on the moon to test this theory.

So the abundance of design in our universe disagrees with the concept of our being created? If you have a purely physical scientifically airtight explanation of the origin of the universe that no one has ever heard, let us know. Otherwise our being created only agrees with what is known about the physical universe.

Have you never heard of clouds? You know, they hold water above the earth and then it comes back down in the form of rain. How is it unscientific to say that there is water above the earth?

When you walk outside at night it isn't completely pitch black. Why? Well look up in the sky, there is a big round shining object, the moon. It is allowing me to see to a degree that I'm not totally blind. From my perspective it is a source of light. Not an u scientific statement. It would be unscientific to claim that the moon stores energy from the sun and retransmits it at night. That's an unscientific statement.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You left out the best part of Genesis 1:1!



And there we have our disagreement. Shall we move on to Genesis 1:7?



Ahh, so the sky is blue because it's just made of water! Science would certainly have a hard time refuting this. Let's continue!



The moon is now a light source! I'm sure science will say something about how it simply reflects the light from the sun, but can we REALLY be sure about that? It's not as if any humans have ever set foot on the moon to test this theory.

Your personal disagreement with the cause of the universe doesn't mean Gen 1:1 is unscientific, it simply means the Bible provides a first cause, some
Thing science is want to explain.

Genesis 1:7 yet again here is where you are thinking about what people say ABOUT the Bible as opposed to what the Bible says. Here is the meaning of Gen 1:7 On Day Two God made an expanse by causing a division to occur “between the waters and the waters.” Some waters remained on the earth, but a great amount of water was raised high above the surface of the earth, and in between these two there came to be an expanse. God called the expanse Heaven, but this was with relation to the earth, as the waters suspended above the expanse are not said to have enclosed stars or other bodies of the outer heavens.

If you want scientific harmony with a water canopy in the early stages of earth watch "How the earth was made" on the history channel. In fact that program hormonizes well with the Genesis creation account.

To say that the Bible is unscien moon is a source of lighttific by calling the moon a light source is to say that modern science has failed because we use the colloquial expressions "sunrise" and "sunset". We of course know that the sun does not actually move, but the effect is due to the earth axis and rotation. To the ancient observer the moon was a light source. That is an argument of semantics not science.

Still I have yet to see a contradiction. Try again.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by moklianne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The Earth was created in 7 days? lol

Btw, you guys keep falling for troll accounts.

The word Day can be used as an expression to denote a period of time other than 24 literal hours. The creative days were epochs. Its like saying "back in my day", or "in the days of the dinosaurs". I'm pretty sure you don't think of a literal 24 hour day when you hear those expressions. Do you?

[Shamalam]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So the abundance of design in our universe disagrees with the concept of our being created?

Again, you don't understand the definitions of the words you're using, and you're conflating correlation with causation. There is an enormous difference between "design" and "complexity." Just because something is too complex for us to 100%, completely understand at this point in time, does not mean that it necessarily HAD to have been "designed" that way. I'm sure there exists some combination of words to help you understand this concept, but I have neither the time nor the desire to come up with them.

Have you never heard of clouds? You know, they hold water above the earth and then it comes back down in the form of rain. How is it unscientific to say that there is water above the earth?

Please point out where the bible mentions clouds in Genesis 1:7? There are plenty of people more intelligent than you who have already dissected and agreed upon the meaning of these passages. The "dome" mentioned before was literally thought to be a solid dome separating the heavens from the earth. They believed there were holes in this dome to let the sun and moon pass through, and also to let the rain in. They literally believed there was a massive body of water on the other side of this dome, and that was the source of rain as they knew it. Can you at least agree that this interpretation is 100% incompatible with modern science?

When you walk outside at night it isn't completely pitch black. Why? Well look up in the sky, there is a big round shining object, the moon. It is allowing me to see to a degree that I'm not totally blind. From my perspective it is a source of light. Not an u scientific statement.

Sorry, but we live in the 21st century, and that is the very definition of an unscientific statement. If you had NO evidence to suggest otherwise, you could certainly hypothesize that the moon is a source of light. Unfortunately for you, we know beyond any doubt that this isn't true. The moon is just a rock that reflects the sun's light. That is a scientific fact, and since the bible disagrees... it is incompatible with modern science.

[Shamalam]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The word Day can be used as an expression to denote a period of time other than 24 literal hours. The creative days were epochs. Its like saying "back in my day", or "in the days of the dinosaurs". I'm pretty sure you don't think of a literal 24 hour day when you hear those expressions. Do you?

Do you have a time machine? Seems to me we could save a lot of time by just going back and asking the original authors what they meant, instead of twisting the words they ACTUALLY WROTE to better fit with your preconceived ideas.

But I guess if you had a time machine, we could simply go back to the beginning of the universe and put this "debate" to rest for good.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, you don't understand the definitions of the words you're using, and you're conflating correlation with causation. There is an enormous difference between "design" and "complexity." Just because something is too complex for us to 100%, completely understand at this point in time, does not mean that it necessarily HAD to have been "designed" that way. I'm sure there exists some combination of words to help you understand this concept, but I have neither the time nor the desire to come up with them.



Please point out where the bible mentions clouds in Genesis 1:7? There are plenty of people more intelligent than you who have already dissected and agreed upon the meaning of these passages. The "dome" mentioned before was literally thought to be a solid dome separating the heavens from the earth. They believed there were holes in this dome to let the sun and moon pass through, and also to let the rain in. They literally believed there was a massive body of water on the other side of this dome, and that was the source of rain as they knew it. Can you at least agree that this interpretation is 100% incompatible with modern science?



Sorry, but we live in the 21st century, and that is the very definition of an unscientific statement. If you had NO evidence to suggest otherwise, you could certainly hypothesize that the moon is a source of light. Unfortunately for you, we know beyond any doubt that this isn't true. The moon is just a rock that reflects the sun's light. That is a scientific fact, and since the bible disagrees... it is incompatible with modern science.

Yet again you make a claim based upon what people say about the bible. The Greeks felt that the planets the sun and moon resided within physical spheres, they were wrong. The bible does not say the dome was solid therefore speculation on that is not proof of the bible being unscientific.

[Ikonoclastia]

The existence of evidence of evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god. The bible says certain things but the bible is the worlds longest running game of Chinese whispers, at least in the Christian world.

Its been translated from other languages, modified to fit the political and social requirements of the times, retranslated, ad nauseam.

I don't believe in god the being who thinks, but I believe in science, and I think the mystery of what existed or didn't exist, how the universe came into being from what existed or didn't exist is pretty much akin to a miracle or magic.

We know there are forces and things that we can see (dark energy and dark matter) out there that are unexplained, there are very likely things we can't see as well out there.

Until we put together the theory of everything we're all in the dark.

[Shamalam]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica..._the_cosmos.29

In the Old Testament the word shamayim represented both the sky/atmosphere, and the dwelling place of God.[29] The raqia or firmament - the visible sky - was a solid inverted bowl over the earth, coloured blue from the heavenly ocean above it.

This is not something that I personally came up with. This is all widely agreed upon by biblical scholars and theologians across the globe. If you claim that the original authors had something in mind other than what is written, the onus is on you to provide some evidence of that. You can't just say "well maybe they meant this instead!" just because it's easier for you to reconcile with the modern world we live in.

[Shamalam]

Originally Posted by Ikonoclastia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The existence of evidence of evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god. The bible says certain things but the bible is the worlds longest running game of Chinese whispers, at least in the Christian world.

Its been translated from other languages, modified to fit the political and social requirements of the times, retranslated, ad nauseam.

I don't believe in god the being who thinks, but I believe in science, and I think the mystery of what existed or didn't exist, how the universe came into being from what existed or didn't exist is pretty much akin to a miracle or magic.

We know there are forces and things that we can see (dark energy and dark matter) out there that are unexplained, there are very likely things we can't see as well out there.

Until we put together the theory of everything we're all in the dark.

Thank you for this. I wish more people could see it from your perspective.