>Gen. 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse
>of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let
>them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
>Gen. 1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the
>heavens to give light on the earth ";and it was so.
>1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light
>to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night;
>He made the stars also.
>Gen. 1:17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens
>to give light on the earth...

If the star Proxima Centauri was "created" on day four of the
Genesis account -- then how far did its light have to travel
to reach the nighttime skies of the Garden of Eden?

If the cosmos and its stars was "created" about 8,000 years
ago -- then when will the light of the nearest quasars
finally reach our eyes here on earth?

..... wait a minute -- our telescopes can already see them!

Maybe I shouldn't renew my subscription to "Creationist Monthly."

UD

It was a dome over the flat earth with all the stars on it. The stars were the same distance away, because they were right there on the firmament. See? There's an answer for everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

Makurosu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was a dome over the flat earth with all the
> stars on it. The stars were the same distance
> away, because they were right there on the
> firmament. See? There's an answer for everything.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament


OK -- I guess I can renew that subscription after all;
plus make a big donation to Liberty University and
Bob Jones University, as well.

I do wonder how Noah's flood managed not to spill over
the sides of the flat earth, however.

UD

Pointing out all the logical, moral, & scientific problems in the Old Testament could take eternity...

But it would make a really fun book. You notice how most of the books and articles that address scientific problems with the bible, give up after the first few chapters of Genesis, simply because the author has already made his point, and it is not worth kicking a dead horse. I would love to see someone pick out random chapters from the center of the old testament, and go to work really disproving those.

forbiddencokedrinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But it would make a really fun book. You notice
> how most of the books and articles that address
> scientific problems with the bible, give up after
> the first few chapters of Genesis, simply because
> the author has already made his point, and it is
> not worth kicking a dead horse. I would love to
> see someone pick out random chapters from the
> center of the old testament, and go to work really
> disproving those.

Joshua halting the sun in the sky, so he could finish
up his battle in daylight is a wonderful example. Of
course the Book of Mormon screwed up the whole concept
by having things move backwards, so as to account for
the impossible phenomenon.

1. Did the sun stand still in the sky? -- no
2. Was there such a battle? -- probably not
3. Was there a Joshua? -- probably not THAT one
4. Were there Israelites? -- probably not that early
5. Did people then fight in battles -- occasionally

So, I managed to salvage about 20% of the narrative. That
is the approximate percentage of those old texts that
we might be able to rely upon as factual. The major
problem being, is that 20% of historicity is scattered
around in the texts, here a little and there a little.

Can't use it as a science book; nor as a history book;
and it isn't much use for anthropology, sociology or
political science either.

There's some good poetry -- some wonderful examples of
archaic language -- a few notable concepts and morals.
A good collection of texts for a graduate class in
Ancient Near Eastern studies, no doubt. A very problematic
text for building modern societies, however.

UD

forbiddencokedrinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But it would make a really fun book. You notice
> how most of the books and articles that address
> scientific problems with the bible, give up after
> the first few chapters of Genesis, simply because
> the author has already made his point, and it is
> not worth kicking a dead horse. I would love to
> see someone pick out random chapters from the
> center of the old testament, and go to work really
> disproving those.

Balam and the talking donkey is my favorite.



Balaam and the angel. Nuremberg Chronicle (1493).
Balaam sends word that he can only do what YHWH commands, and God has, via a nocturnal dream, told him not to go. Moab consequently sends higher ranking priests and offers Balaam honours; Balaam, in his coveteousness, continues to press God, and God finally gives him over to his greed and permits him to go but with instructions to say only what he commands. Balaam thus, without being asked again, sets out in the morning with the princes of Moab and God becomes angry that he went, and the Angel of the Lord (Numbers 22:22) is sent to prevent him. At first the angel is seen only by the donkey Balaam is riding, which tries to avoid the otherwise invisible angel. After Balaam starts punishing the donkey for refusing to move, it is miraculously given the power to speak to Balaam (Numbers 22:28), and it complains about Balaam's treatment. At this point, Balaam is allowed to see the angel, who informs him that the donkey is the only reason the angel did not kill Balaam. Balaam immediately repents, but is told to go on.


I have absolutely NO idea why the angel would withold death on account of the donkey. Surely the angel would be smart enough to know that donkey could get a better owner elsewhere.
That's one pretty imporant donkey.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2012 01:15AM by dec.

In fact they have several loopholes. In mormon creation every day is a thousand years. And there is no telling how long Adam and Eve stayed in the garden before they fell. It could be millions of years.

Also even though you learn in the temple that the genesis account is literal, the creation account is only for this solar system despite that it mentions the creations of stars. You gotta learn how to "interpret" correctly.

If this fails to convince you then remember that despite scripture saying otherwise, any discrepancy is because genesis and the book of moses (the alleged original to genesis) describes the "spiritual" creation of the universe.

Nevermind that HF didn't create the universe but merely organized matter from it into our particular galaxy, and never mind that he has a gazillion other projects continously going on involving their own solar systems so there can be no single point in time when the stars were created, neither spiritually nor physically.

Confused yet?

brefots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In fact they have several loopholes. In mormon
> creation every day is a thousand years. And there
> is no telling how long Adam and Eve stayed in the
> garden before they fell. It could be millions of
> years.
>...
> Confused yet?

So, the stars were not created on day four -- the only
work along those lines being the organization of matter
into Sol (the sun). Thus, the starlight from all the
distant shiny objects was flowing along, without any
particular interruption.

No wonder Mormons and Baptists get into arguments over
how old the cosmos is.

And good old Adam and his wife could have lived in what
is now Jackson County, Missouri for 4.5 billion years,
before getting kicked out into what is now Caldwell Co.

Just so long as nothing on the planet died, before that
fall and subsequent expulsion.

I don't think the Assemblies of God folks will buy that
explanation either.

Looks like its still a bit too soon to shelve the Cleon Skousen
volumes next to the Ted Haggard books in Joel Osteen's rectory.

UD

Every god was once a human on a similar earth with his own god as his spiritual father who once was a man e.t.c. It goes on infinitely so the universe could have no beginning.

More outrageous theories. One from my father: The race of gods evolved, yes evolution is true, just not on our planet. And one from my BIL: There are other races of gods, completely different in form than us. The evidence for this you might ask for. Here it comes: My BIL claimed he spiritually visited another galaxy, and the intelligent life-form there was some kind of huge bird and they had the priesthood!

brefots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > More outrageous theories. One from my father: The
> race of gods evolved, yes evolution is true, just
> not on our planet. And one from my BIL: There are
> other races of gods, completely different in form
> than us. The evidence for this you might ask for.
> Here it comes: My BIL claimed he spiritually
> visited another galaxy, and the intelligent
> life-form there was some kind of huge bird and
> they had the priesthood!



Do they believe that aliens are God?
I recently learned that lots of people believe that the biblical God is a group of aliens, supposedly explaining the plural use of God(s) in the bible.... who came to earth to mine elements. Then they genetically created humans as worker slaves and some of these aliens had sex with the humans. They believe the bible talks about them as Nephilim.

There are religious people who have published books on the topic of Nephilim who came from other planets and Jesus is going to come back and kill them.
Wild stuff. I mean REALLY WILD stuff.
The religious authors are completely scarey though. I had some on-line conversations with a few of them, and yep, they are very scarey hell-fire brimstone types.
The non-religious people who believe in the aliens as earth's gods aren't as scarey as the evangelist types imo.

Also, all pictures of Galaxies are fakes created by shysters of the basest sort. Because they will not appear for many millions or (billions in the deepfield) of years, it is safe to assume that the existence of these so-called "galaxies" are mere speculation or hyjinx.

JoD3:360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, all pictures of Galaxies are fakes created
> by shysters of the basest sort. Because they will
> not appear for many millions or (billions in the
> deepfield) of years, it is safe to assume that the
> existence of these so-called "galaxies" are mere
> speculation or hyjinx.


Somewhere, in my memory, is a sound-bite from a creationist
young-earther, advising that "light traveled faster back then."

But, just out of curiosity, I wonder what speed today's
creationists assign to a photon moving through a vacuum?

UD

The Earth was once a Terrestrial sphere and was in a different part of space (near Kolob?). When Adam fell, the entire Earth fell with him and became a Telestial sphere. Death entered the world, and the Earth was moved to it's present position. At the Millennium when the Earth is renewed and receives its paradisical glory, it will become a Terrestrial sphere again and will be moved back to the part of space where it was. The city of Enoch and the Lost Ten Tribes, which are spacefaring Terrestrialized sections of the Earth, will be reunited with the Earth again to become one larger world again. As the Earth travels to the Terrestrial part of space where it will be during the Millennium, the stars will "fall." This is because they are going past the Earth as it moves to it's new home. :)

We can see the stars and galaxies here, because this part of space is a lot older than the Earth.

Isn't the Gospel simple and beautiful?

Uncle Dale, you've done a great service with using the speed of light to disprove creationism (really Biblical literalism, isn't it?)

The speed of light is known to be constant. Light from the nearest star takes four years to reach us.

It seems to me that the only way that the Genesis creation myth could be real is if the world were flat and the a thin dome. And that's exactly how those ancient people saw things.

Praise to the man, Albert Einstein. We all just got a little bit smarter (well, some of us, sigh).

Speed of light is an amazing thing...

Don Bagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> It seems to me that the only way that the Genesis
> creation myth could be real is if the world were
> flat and the a thin dome. And that's exactly how
> those ancient people saw things.
...

Well, according to brefots, the Mormon apologists have
a "loophole," by which they can be creationists and still
not have to worry about when the stars first appeared in
the skies of the planets circling old Sol.

But the typical LDS neighbor I grew up defending myself
against, would have argued that the world was 8,000 years
old -- and that Eloheim lived in the next galaxy, or some
such place. At any rate, the speed of light question
would have passed right over their ignorant minds.

The speed of light question might be more effective in
arguments with non-LDS biblical literalists today though.
The LDS people I used to encounter in my younger days were
not the "scientific" creationists we hear so much about now.

UD

I gotcha Unc Dave, but nothing the creationists believe can be backed up by math. And nobody disputes mathematics. Well, if they do I won't talk to them (family or not).

Don Bagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> And nobody
> disputes mathematics. Well, if they do I won't
> talk to them (family or not).

Some of the biblical literalists argue that global warming
cannot possibly raise the ocean levels to any dangerous
degree -- because Noah's flood was the last destruction of
humanity by water, etc. etc.

It is a bit disconcerting to see people who otherwise
appear intelligent enough to live their lives, fall back
upon such utterly absurd arguments.

I honestly think that -- if the majority of the people
in North America could have their way -- Science would
be banned and only a certain class of teachers would be
allowed to pontificate upon what was true or false.

Oh well...

UD