Posted on 01/08/2004 7:21:37 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
How old is the Grand Canyon? Most scientists agree with the version that rangers at Grand Canyon National Park tell visitors: that the 217-mile-long chasm in northern Arizona was carved by the Colorado River 5 million to 6 million years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Actually I am that very thing on a current project. However, I personally do not use the term "expert", (nor ever have) even though I have been called such by some of my colleagues in my field on occasion.
Testing a software conversion tool. :-)
visualized him as a smart-aleck 20 year old in college
LOL! I wish! :-) Approaching 50 here. Sigh!
In scanning your reply, you post:
That still does not reconcile the obvious errors in the order given in Genesis. For example:
Gen 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:14 - 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
I assume you are pointing out that plant life could not exist in the absence of the light provided by celestial bodies?
This is an apparent contradiction in the text to be sure. A closer inspection shows that our planet and the sun where formed the first day. (3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.)
You quoted v12 and v14 which were presented as occurring on the 3rd and 4th days respectively. In general sequence terms this preserves the logic flow, that is to say, light was in place before life appeared.
For the moment we'll let the more esoteric language arguments slide, because only creationists would care, but there is also an explanation involving differences in Hebrew tenses and our English translations of such that addresses timing of the conclusion of events listed in Genesis. Additionally, there is also a theological argument involving sequencing to show the superiority of Yahweh over the local gods that would have made sense to the target audience, but that seems a bit weak to build an argument around.
The next interesting point you make is:
However, the order does not fit the observed data. Foe example, first generation stars would not have planets, yet they certainly would be emitting electromagnetic energy.
Let me make sure I understand your position. Are you suggesting that the description of a planetary body being created at the same time as the parent star is the issue?
An aside...I was pleased to see someone who has even heard of the Magellan spacecraft. I spent two years of my life on that one, and relatively few people are even aware of it or its contributions to science.
I assume you are pointing out that plant life could not exist in the absence of the light provided by celestial bodies?
I believe his point is that in Genesis, the Sun/Moon/stars are created on a "day" following the creation of grasses and fruit trees. In fact, though, the Sun/Moon/stars are at least several billion years old, whereas grasses and fruit trees did not exist prior to about 150 million years ago (fruit trees) and 40 million years ago (grasses). Major contradiction in chronologies.
For the moment we'll let the more esoteric language arguments slide, because only creationists would care, but there is also an explanation involving differences in Hebrew tenses and our English translations of such that addresses timing of the conclusion of events listed in Genesis.
So... It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?
That's a more apt comparison than it may sound at first. Clinton was similarly splitting hairs on verb tenses:
Q: That statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there [is] "no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton," was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?In any case, the "verb tenses" argument doesn't really help, because a) if invoked to "repair" the chronologies then the text becomes incredibly tortured, and b) the tenses in the key passages under discussion don't lend themselves to the sort of ambiguity that would allow for the necessary chronological "rearrangement".Clinton: It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the –if he – if "is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.
In this web page, a Hebrew scholar discusses the matter of Hebrew tenses and idiom, and produces a "strict" translation of Genesis 1 which retains the tenses of the original language. His rendering of the relevant passages is:
11 And Elohim zsaith, The earth zbrings forth grass, herb aseeding seed, and tree of fruit aproducing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in it, on The earth; and so zit is. 12 And The earth zbrings forth grass, herb aseeding seed after its kind, and tree aproducing fruit, whose seed is in it, after its kind; and Elohim zsees that it is good. 13 And evening zis and morning zis, a third day.You'll note that all the critical passages are rendered in the present tense -- not in the past, where the ambiguity between the past tense and the pluperfect can come into play.14 And Elohim zsaith, zthere shall be lights in ye firmament of The heavens, to bdivide between The day and The night; and pthey have been (or were) for signs and for seasons, and for days and years: 15 and pthey have been (or were) for lights in ye firmament of The heavens to give light on The earth, and so zit shall be.
16 And Elohim zmakes ^Those two The lights The great ones; ^That light that great one for ye rule of The day, and ^That light, That lesser (lit. little one) for ye rule of The night; ^The stars also. 17 And Elohim zsets ^them in ye firmament of The heavens to bgive light on The earth, and 18 bto rule over The day and over The night, and to bdivide between The light and The darkness, and Elohim zsees that it is good. 19 And evening zis and morning zis, a fourth day.
[RadioAstronomer: However, the order does not fit the observed data. Foe example, first generation stars would not have planets, yet they certainly would be emitting electromagnetic energy.]
Let me make sure I understand your position. Are you suggesting that the description of a planetary body being created at the same time as the parent star is the issue?
No, I believe his point is that "stars shining in the heaven" would have predated planets of any sort (including Earth) by many billions of years, and yet in Genesis the Earth is created before the stars.
1. Big Bang Cosmology/General Relativity VS. What the Bible says:
The first suggestion that laid the groundwork for the 'Big Bang Theory' was by none other than Albert Einstein. His field equation of general relativity predicted an expanding universe. Whether our universe will expand forever or eventually collapse is still debated among cosmologists. In either case, the actual density of matter in our universe is within a factor of ten of the so-called critical density, the point of exact balance between permanent expansion and eventual contraction. But to be so close to this critical density after some 20 billion years of expansion suggests intelligent design. What?!? Yeah, there must have been precise tuning in the earliest moments of the Big Bang for it to work at all. At 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang, for instance--the so-called Planck time--the density must have been equal to the critical density to one part in 10 to the 60. If it had been ever so slightly higher, the universe would have collapsed quickly and there would have been no opportunity for life to form. On the other hand, had the density been ever so slightly smaller, the universe would have expanded rapidly and no galaxies, stars, or planets would have formed. Again, no life. Thus, life is the result of fine tuning the density of matter-energy at the Planck time to one part in 10 to the 60!8 But it was the result of an accident, eh?
I've taken the liberty of color-coding this portion of your post in order to make the following points clearer.
While you apparently wanted to give the impression that you wrote the above passage yourself, in fact for the most part it is clearly "borrowed" without credit from other sources.
The blue portion of your text, for example, is, um, "remarkably" similar to the following passage from this creationist page:
Historically, the first suggestion that would propose the idea [of the Big Bang] came in 1916 from Albert Einstein's field equation of general relativity predicting an expanding universe.But that by itself would only merit a raised eyebrow. Coupled with what follows it, however...
The portion of your text which I have highlighted in green is a VERBATIM COPY of the exact same long passage on this creationist web page.
All you did was insert five words of your own into the middle (marked in black), and one short question on the very end. Amusingly, your five words in the middle were inserted cleanly into the middle of a sentence of the original. Right smack in the middle of the following original sentence:
But to be so close to this critical density after some 20 billion years of expansion [*], there must have been precise tuning in the earliest moments of the Big Bang for it to work at all....you inserted your own five words ("suggests intelligent design. What?!? Yeah") at the point I've marked with an "*". Hardly much of an original contribution.
So unless your name is Robert C. Newman (author of the original work), this appears to be a case of plagiarism.
I point this out for two reasons:
1. Uncovering creationist plagiarisms has become something of a hobby of mine. It's fun detective work, and it's astonishing how often creationists plagiarize rather than make technical arguments in their own words. History may repeat itself, but creationists repeat each other. Part of the reason I track these things down is that it helps me understand why creationists so often go around recirculating and repeating the same old debunked nonsense, instead of learning something new from primary sources or personal reflection.
2. You made a big point twice now on this thread to belittle the practice of simply parroting something that one has "heard". From your posts:
"Oh really? How so? Be specific please. And ignorant restatings of what you 'heard' do not count." [From your post #213]But haven't you just done that yourself in this post via cut-and-paste?"For all the chest-beating and things you may have heard the Bible says..." [From your post #222]
3. Your post was in answer to RA's question, "How much and to what level of big bang cosmology, general relativity, stellar evolution, and planetary formation are you familiar with?" It seems ironic, then, that rather than describing in your own words how much you might know about each of those topics, you chose to just cut-and-paste some paragraphs from creationist websites. Or *is* looking stuff up on creationist websites and repeating them the extent of your scientific knowledge? I'm not being facetious here -- in my experience, far too many creationists and/or anti-evolutionists have learned everything they know about science/evolution from pretty much *only* creationist sources. That's rather like relying entirely on Tom Daschle for information on President Bush's policies and record.
Are you about to tell me this contradicts the Biblical account? Not really.
*That* part? No, because the Bible doesn't say anything about cosmological constants one way or the other. But then, that's not the issues that RA was talking about.
For all the chest-beating and things you may have heard the Bible says, in reality the Hebrew word used to refer to the astronomical universe is shamayim. That word is used in conjunction with the phrase 'stretch out' several times in the Old Testament. The concept being that the cosmos is not static and used with the verb natah as an active participle form indicates that the process is ongoing.
Now there you go again...
From the same web page referenced earlier in relation to your "blue-tagged" text:
The word shamayim is used in the Bible to refer to the astronomical universe. The word itself is connected with the phrase stretched out eleven times in the Old Testament [...] The concept here is that the cosmos is not static but the verb natah is used in an active participle form indicating that the process is ongoing.Sound familiar?
In any case, it's rather a stretch (no pun intended). Taking Isaiah 40:22, for example: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in". The "spreading" is clearly in the context of covering the Earth with the "tent" of the sky (which ancient man thought was actually a hard dome over the Earth itself), not a multi-dimensional expansion of the structure of spacetime itself.
If there's any "ongoing" verb tense involved (and as with the "past" Hebrew tense, it's really ambiguous and up to interpretation), it was probably meant just in the sense that God keeps the sky "stretched" over the Earth so that it doesn't fall down, in the same sense that he "makes" the Sun rise and set (even though gravity and inertia ensure that it would continue to do so even if God went on vacation).
I like this quote regarding the idea of the 'big bang.' In Parade magazine, February 4, 1996, Marilyn vos Savant had a reader who expressed this view as follows: "I assume that you, like most intellectual types, are not a religious person. So what do you think of the Big Bang theory." Ms vos Savant responded: "I think that if it had been a religion that first maintained the notion that all the matter in the entire universe had once been contained in an area smaller than the point of a pin, scientists probably would have laughed at the idea."
Compare with the account from this creationist website:
In Parade magazine, February 4, 1996, Marilyn vos Savant had a reader who expressed this view as follows: "I assume that you, like most intellectual types, are not a religious person. So what do you think of the Big Bang theory." Ms vos Savant responded: "I think that if it had been a religion that first maintained the notion that all the matter in the entire universe had once been contained in an area smaller than the point of a pin, scientists probably would have laughed at the idea."
Verbatim copy. Even your conclusion is just restated from theirs:
Silly but typical. Assume the data is valueless because of the viewpoint of the speaker, but I digress.
Their version:
We believe there is a major point to be made in this exchange: when a proposal is made that is creative or imaginative, one should not reject it just because of the vantage point of the author.But you managed to turn it into a broadside swipe instead of a lesson to be learned. Gee, thanks.
Are you going to propose that the Bible claims all creating on the part of God is over? Therefore viewing new stars being formed is somehow a contradiction? Ha!
And yet, creationists bristle at the notion that new life is being continuously formed. Go figure.
It's nearly 7 PM here and my wife is going to shoot me.
Man, I know *that* feeling...
I'm saying you're a hypocrite... and proud of it.
For your files, a Google on "boy from Tukana." "Tukana" is a misspelling of "Turkana" as in Richard Leakey's "Lake Turkana Boy" find.
Creationism is not "science."
Creationism is not "science."
OK, then disputes over Biblical interpretation should be settled by majority vote.
No, I wasn't trying to "appear" like I was the author. Geez Ichneumon, did I say I was an expert? No I clearly said I was not one. You try to paint me as intellectually dishonest. That is not true. I wasn't aware this was a research paper, demanding footnotes, I thought we were in an internet discussion! Of course I searched and did a cut and paste. You smirk and ooze condescension at my "contributions" which only show that I digested the info. I am impressed with RA, he is an intelligent man that seems to be fair minded. I try to be fair minded. I spent quite a bit of time at pro-evolution websites and read their best criticisms to formulate my response sir.
Are you about to tell me you don't rely on other people's arguments when they seem to express it well? If so, then you are quite the articulate fellow on many subjects.
When I said: "For all the chest-beating and things you may have heard the Bible says..." I was trying to ensure we didn't degenerate into something not quoted from the text.
In any case, congratulations. My HUGE secret is exposed! I actually use the internet to find information to help me express myself.
It's all part of the same worldview. Geology and Darwinism are both based on naturalistic presuppositions. It's ultimately about "worldview" not science. Science requires observation and repeatability.
I could mention the fact that the greatest scientists in history were creationists. Just how could an ignoramous creationist like Isaac Newton, or Copernicus, or Galileo, or Kepler, or Farraday, or Maxwell - make the discoveries that they made - being the creationist buffoons that they were and all?
You should know before going any further that I have argued on this topic about a thousand times, and I am familiar with most of the arguments on both sides.
I thought you were done posting to me. Have a change of heart?
He quotes. That's standard practice in writing anything for publication including Internet publication such as FR. You don't have to be writing a research paper to acknowledge your sources.
Doesn't make them the same subject matter.
Now, I ask you: If these presuppositions are not based upon observation or repeatability (and they are not), what are they based on? They are based on worldview. A naturalist will go out with presuppositions in his head and then merely interpret all evidence through the lens those presuppositions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.