Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
Hi there, at the request of natt, I was trying another dump of the movie to get better quality before publication. But the revision that you stated doesn't seem to work. Natt mentioned that you gave him a binary to use, but is there anyway that I can get the source for that binary diggidoyo?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
sudgy wrote:
The Hebrew word erets can either mean earth, meaning global, or land, refering to a certain area. It is simply saying that God hasn't made these things in that land. You can also see that throughout genesis 2 it is talking about Eden, not the world.
Objection.
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 use different words for many things (this is because Biblical Scholars believe that Genesis 2 was written in around 1000 BCE whereas Genesis 1 was written around 600 BCE)
However, Genesis 2 consistently uses the same word as Genesis 1 to refer to the Earth. And it's very clearly referring to the whole earth.
For instance:
Genesis 2:4
אֵ֣לֶּהתוֹלְד֧וֹתהַשָּׁמַ֛יִםאָ֖רֶץבְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑םבְּי֗וֹםעֲשׂ֛וֹתיְהוָ֥האֱלֹהִ֖יםאֶ֥רֶץוְשָׁמָֽיִם׃
Translated:
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
The word used for earth is:
אֶ֥רֶץ
or eras
This same word is also used in Genesis 1:2, which begins:
וְהָאָ֗רֶץהָיְתָ֥התֹ֙הוּ֙
or "The earth was formless"
אָ֗רֶץ
Please note that the diacritic markings are slightly different. However, these are the same as the word used in Genesis 2, it merely distinguishes between different grammatical roles of the same word in this instance. It should be noted that in the Torah, the diacritic marks do not exist. They are simply used in modern Hebrew to assist in pronunciation and reading.
Compare with Genesis 2:5 which is the verse you're taking issue with:
וְכֹ֣ל ׀שִׂ֣יחַהַשָּׂדֶ֗הטֶ֚רֶםיִֽהְיֶ֣הבָאָ֔רֶץוְכָלעֵ֥שֶׂב־הַשָּׂדֶ֖הטֶ֣רֶםיִצְמָ֑חכִּי֩לֹ֨אהִמְטִ֜יריְהוָ֤האֱלֹהִים֙עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץוְאָדָ֣םאַ֔יִןלַֽעֲבֹ֖דאֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
Translated:
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground
The word used for earth in this case is:
אָ֔רֶץ
and
אָ֔רֶץ
Which, if you notice, is the same word. Not a translation ambiguity.
There are, of course, other words in ancient Hebrew that mean area or land as well as other words that mean world or earth. Why wasn't a distinction made if one was intended? And why do you believe that a distinction was intended when there's no evidence that one was?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
Just curious sudgy. If you're going to use the words evening and morning as being completely literal and refuting my claim. Then how would you explain the order of creation presented in Genesis 2 as compared to Genesis 1?
Genesis 1:
Day 1:
Heavens and Earth
Light
Day 2:
Separated the water from the sky (which is also water according to the literal reading)
Day 3:
Created land and plants
Day 4, etc.
Day 6:
Man and Animals
Genesis 2:
Day 7:
Rest
Day 8:
Plants and Man.
So, why is the Bible literally correct when it mentions morning and evening, but misinterpreted when I point out that the orders of creation presented are in conflict?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
Nach, I'm focusing on a single topic at the moment, so as not to confuse the situation. However, I will be more than happy to address your point once we get to that metaphorical bridge.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
Nach, I'm not attempting to say "this is how things are." I'm simply trying to open sudgy up to the possibility that the universe is that old. He seems closed to the possibility because he believes that the Bible is in conflict with it, so I'm am attempting to show that the Bible is not necessarily in conflict with an old universe.
We have many other reasons to believe that the universe is old, and none save a possibly flawed interpretation of the Bible to believe that it is 6000 years old. But we're not at that stage yet.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
sudgy wrote:
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
I'm getting to that, first off, you didn't seem to have responded to my last point, do I take this to mean that you have conceded that the Bible does not preclude Evolution and a 13.7 Billion year time frame? If not, I would be interested to hear your reasoning with regard to my last post.
You have not convinced me about it. Another thing is, it said that He created all plants at one time, then all the fish and birds at once then all the land animals at once. And it specifically says that he created. Not something like he let them evolve.
Yet you still have not responded to my last point. You're changing the subject, and I won't let you do that.
I'll reiterate:
First, you held that the 7 days of creation is literal.
I stated that it's possible that creation took place in a literal 7 days from a different frame of reference. Because time is relative.
You countered this by saying that it couldn't happen that way. I asked for the basis of that assumption.
You replied with: "things are written how the writers think." In other words, God will put things in terms that the people of the time could understand.
I countered with: people would have a very difficult time grasping the concept of a 13.7 billion year old universe. Supposing if God inspired the writers the write that the sun and moon stopped moving, this is evidence that the writers of the Bible and people at that time could not grasp the concept of the Sun being very far away and very very large. How would they grasp something as old as a 13.7 billion year old universe when they did not even have a word for a number that high?
Please consider, and give a coherent explanation. I'm not asking you to speak authoritatively on behalf of God, of course. I'm merely asking for you to justify your interpretation of the Bible. But more importantly, justify your rejection of the alternate interpretation I'm presenting. An interpretation which enjoys wide acceptance from your peers, by the way. Why is the view that I'm presenting necessarily false?
The basis you presented is either flawed, or it simply lends credence to my interpretation. I don't see a third option, this seems to be a true dichotomy.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
sudgy wrote:
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
My goal is to convince you that evolution is correct.
I feel that through structural homology and molecular biology (which I explained earlier) I already said that macroevolution couldn't have happened.
I'm getting to that, first off, you didn't seem to have responded to my last point, do I take this to mean that you have conceded that the Bible does not preclude Evolution and a 13.7 Billion year time frame? If not, I would be interested to hear your reasoning with regard to my last post.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
There is a basis for the assumption that things are written how the writers think. Joshua 10:13 says "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." The thing is, the Earth actually stopped spinning, for that is what causes the sun and moon to rise and set. The writers didn't know this fact, however, so they said what they thought happened. God still inspired it. If it had said, "So the Earth stopped rotating" people in that time would have not gotten it. So yes, there is a basis in the assertion.
So, if you claim that people would be unable to understand the earth is a rotating sphere, why would they be able to understand a 13.7 billion year old universe?
sudgy wrote:
And another thing. Can you provide evidence that there is no God?
That wasn't part of our deal. I'm not attempting to prove or disprove it. In fact, I am acting in good faith and giving your beliefs respect by not dismissing them out of hand and working within the guidelines that you set out for me, despite my believing them to be completely spurious.
My goal is to convince you that evolution is correct. (Correct being the theory or model that most closely resembles reality as we know it.)
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
One of the things that we know about nature is that time is relative, my 7 days is not necessarily the same as your 7 days. If we assume that the time frame presented is accurate, would it be possible that the 7 days presented is time dilated in such a way to allow for a 13.7 billion year old universe from our frame of reference?
This is the argument put forward by Gerald Schroeder in the Science of God, by the way.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
sudgy wrote:
While the Bible was made by humans, it was directly inspired by God. He made sure that what He wanted was in there, but what He didn't want not to go in there. All the contradictions are us misinterpreting what it says.
So contradictions between the Bible and Nature are simply us misinterpreting the Bible then?
By that logic would it be possible that the 6000 year span in the Bible is similarly a misinterpretation?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
Also, you'll have to show me that the Bible says that the universe is billions of years old. I believe that the Bible has more authority than science, so you can not show me through science that the universe is billions of years old.
Science is nothing more than the study of nature, and nature is the final arbitrator of science. If nature (which you hold to be God's direct creation) shows that the Bible (which may contain translation and transliteration flaws, and was reproduced by fallible humans and is thus only God's indirect creation) is in error. Which would you hold to be more authoritative?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
I'm just working out the terms of the argument.
So as it stands, my understanding is I have to convince you that:
1) The literal interpretation of the Biblical time frame (6000 years, 7 days) is in error and inconsistent with nature.
2) "Macroevolution" is not inconsistent with nature (or scientific research, which is the same thing).
And then you'll accept "macroevolution" as a valid explaination of the way the world works.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
sudgy wrote:
No. It's still in conflict with the Bible. And there is a lot of scientific evidence against it, so I don't see how you could give me the evidence.
So I'll have to disprove both the asserted age of the universe in the Bible, and then prove to you that the theory of evolution is valid on a multi-million year time scale then, and not in conflict with any valid scientific research?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
sudgy wrote:
Here's a challenge. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that evolution is true? Assuming that the request is a valid claim of evolution, I can present evidence to support it.
First of all, I will never believe in macroevolution. It is clearly in conflict with the Bible, and with the scientific research. If your evidence is showing that organisms can change over time, I believe that can happen. Wild dogs evolved into domestic dogs. But, that was microevolution. There has never been a complete change from one species to a completely different species that we have recorded. They are able to change somewhat, even to the point that they are a new species, but they still are similar to what they originaly were, as with dogs. And if you were to look at the DNA of a wild dog and a domestic dog, they would still be similar. That is not the case with other similar species.
If you don't have a criteria to be convinced then you are not debating in good faith. And thus, are not worth arguing with.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
1. So what you're saying is: Adam didn't have nipples; Adam and Eve didn't have a curved spine or a tailbone; their voice box nerve went from the brain to the voice box without curving around the cardioid artery, etc etc, but once the Fall happened we suddenly got all of these poor design traits that we seem to share with other species in some cases?
Doesn't that strike you as the least bit disingenuous?
2. Actually, that post is an argument for "macroevolution" is possible given "microevolution" which are both just simply evolution. Over generations, yes, both can happen. The evidence is overwhelming.
Here's a challenge. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that evolution is true? Assuming that the request is a valid claim of evolution, I can present evidence to support it.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
Bisqwit wrote:
Yes, and goes to the category as some earlier "look how smart I am" shows in this thread. In short, make a predetermined conclusion, and then pick anything that seems to support that conclusion, no matter how far drawn, no matter how separated from context, no matter how irrelevant, and hope that by quantity alone you have sufficient "evidence" to waltz to victory and silence any opposition.
And yes, I know that you can say many of those same words about proponents of Bible, including me.
That's called "confirmation bias" and it's wrong no matter who does it.
However, his image stands as strong evidence that the Bible is not infallible.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(37)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2633
TAS frowns on saves, but if the save can be generated using an example movie it's generally ok, it's even more ok in this situation, because it's required. (If it's required)
I'd say don't worry terribly much about the logistics at this point. Things will work out as they work out.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
