Genesis 1:3 and Light

@sonship said
@moonbus

I think more people have seen the propaganda film "Inherit the Wind" then have actually read much of the court proceedings of the Scopes trial.

After reading some of the actual proceedings and how W.J. Bryant fielded some of those questions I realized how I'd be influenced by Hollywood to assume the Christian on stand made a fool of himself, which he did ...[text shortened]... n the movie or play "Inherit the Wind" you've gotten a biased version of the courtroom proceedings.

What I meant by referencing the Scopes trial was that some county or other in America tries, every year it seems, to pass legislation to get the Book of Genesis taught in the public schools as an alternative scientific explanation, under new names again and again.

Creation ex nihilo is not subject to testing or evidence or contra-evidence. Creationism/Intelligent Design is not even bad science; it is no sort of science at all. It makes religion look silly to try to pass it off as any sort of explanation.

@moonbus said
What I meant by referencing the Scopes trial was that some county or other in America tries, every year it seems, to pass legislation to get the Book of Genesis taught in the public schools as an alternative scientific explanation, under new names again and again.

Creation ex nihilo is not subject to testing or evidence or contra-evidence. Creationism/Intelligent D ...[text shortened]... cience at all. It makes religion look silly to try to pass it off as any sort of explanation.

Scopes trial in the spirituality forum?

Think about this for a second and see if you can figure out your mistake.

@eladar said
That is the explanation. Something greater than us created everything. It may not be the explanation you like. You do not need to believe it. You just need to understand that what applies to a natural explanation does not apply to a supernatural.

Do that and you will be a lot less offensive to people who hold a different belief than your belief.

How light came to be is explained, roughly, as follows: The very early universe consisted of intensely compacted, hot, ionized gases. Under these conditions of intense heat and pressure, photons could not be propagated, therefore the universe was dark. The pressure caused expansion, or hyper-inflation; this caused the distance between particles to increase, thereby reducing the pressure and the temperature. Below some critical threshold, the pressure and temperature dropped to where photons could be propagated, and the universe 'lit up.'

That is what an explanation looks like. It breaks down a phenomenon which prima facie appears mysterious into smaller and smaller pieces, each of which can be empirically tested and verified; the pieces are then linked into a logically coherent chain of causes and effects, in accordance with observed natural laws, or at any rate not radically incompatible with observed natural laws or in outright defiance of natural laws.

Now what is your so-called explanation? God said "let there be light" and the lights went on. This is to explain something mysterious by something else even more mysterious. God said something and it just happened, poof!, creation ex nihilo. This is no different than magic, this is the same as Harry Potter saying "wingazia levioso" and a plate suddenly starts levitating. This is no logical sequence of steps in compliance with observed natural laws; this is outright defiance of natural law.

Now, if you want to believe in miracles, that's fine. But miracles do not explain anything. They defy explanation. Saying "Godidit" explains nothing. God is the most mysterious thing there is; "Godidit" is even more mysterious than that the lights went on. In order for an explanation to explain anything, the explanation must be less mysterious than what is to be explained, not more so.

It is not that I don't want to believe the 'explanation' in the Book of Genesis. It's that it isn't an explanation.

Sensible Christians read the book of Genesis not as a factual account of man’s whence, but as a moral allegory about his wherefore.

@moonbus said
How light came to be is explained, roughly, as follows: The very early universe consisted of intensely compacted, hot, ionized gases. Under these conditions of intense heat and pressure, photons could not be propagated, therefore the universe was dark. The pressure caused expansion, or hyper-inflation; this caused the distance between particles to increase, thereby reducing t ...[text shortened]... ok of Genesis not as a factual account of man’s whence, but as a moral allegory about his wherefore.

You believe your beliefs are truth.

All you are doing is proving my point about true believers. You are pretty controlling.

@moonbus said
How light came to be is explained, roughly, as follows: The very early universe consisted of intensely compacted, hot, ionized gases. Under these conditions of intense heat and pressure, photons could not be propagated, therefore the universe was dark. The pressure caused expansion, or hyper-inflation; this caused the distance between particles to increase, thereby reducing t ...[text shortened]... ok of Genesis not as a factual account of man’s whence, but as a moral allegory about his wherefore.

The thing is that Genesis was written nearly 3500 years ago.

Science had not even advanced to infancy stage yet. 'Godidit' was a perfectly adequate explanation back then. Man was simply not equipped to understand cosmology at this point.

Modern Christians are equipped to understand more of the physical world, and can fill in the gaps. At least they should be able to. Ignoring everything they (should have) learned in school is a lazy way to be a Christian which doesn't honor God at all.

@suzianne said
The thing is that Genesis was written nearly 3500 years ago.

Science had not even advanced to infancy stage yet. 'Godidit' was a perfectly adequate explanation back then. Man was simply not equipped to understand cosmology at this point.

Modern Christians are equipped to understand more of the physical world, and can fill in the gaps. At least they should be ...[text shortened]... they (should have) learned in school is a lazy way to be a Christian which doesn't honor God at all.

The Bible is usually called the word of God and the information in it is supposed to be information from God, not science.

If you want to believe the Bible is the work of early men trying to be scientists, you are free to believe it.

@eladar said
How? A supernatural being who is not limited to natural laws interacts with a created natural universe. This is how the Bible explains it.

That's not an explanation. I'm going to take all this as an answer of 'no' to my question.

You mentioned that supernatural events were 'recorded'. How did they come to be recorded?

@bigdoggproblem said
That's not an explanation. I'm going to take all this as an answer of 'no' to my question.

You mentioned that supernatural events were 'recorded'. How did they come to be recorded?

Lol, ok.

The answer is no by your circular reasoning.

@eladar said
Lol, ok.

The answer is no by your circular reasoning.

Well, then go on!

Answer the question.

If you can.

Put up, or shut up.

@bigdoggproblem said
Well, then go on!

Answer the question.

If you can.

Put up, or shut up.

If you are willing to accept a supernatural event recorded in a book that cannot be proven true, look at the original post of this thread.

God saying let there be light and light coming into existence.

@moonbus said
What I meant by referencing the Scopes trial was that some county or other in America tries, every year it seems, to pass legislation to get the Book of Genesis taught in the public schools as an alternative scientific explanation, under new names again and again.

Creation ex nihilo is not subject to testing or evidence or contra-evidence. Creationism/Intelligent D ...[text shortened]... cience at all. It makes religion look silly to try to pass it off as any sort of explanation.

I think I would have to look at a case by case analysis. That every year some US county wants the Book of Genesis taught in public school is probably a caricature and exaggeration.

Some request that problems with long established theories be taught along with "orthodoxy" to let students learn to think.

Are you making a artificial dichotomy to suggest all voices in reflection on how some science subjects are taught children are about teaching Genesis?

Anyway, just for fun there are 31 verses in Genesis chapter one. What virtually universally held scientific fact renders which one of those 31 verses impossible to have been true ?

@sonship said
I think I would have to look at a case by case analysis. That every year some US county wants the Book of Genesis taught in public school is probably a caricature and exaggeration.

Some request that problems with long established theories be taught along with "orthodoxy" to let students learn to think.

Are you making a artificial dichotomy to suggest all voices in ...[text shortened]... universally held scientific fact renders which one of those 31 verses impossible to have been true ?

Nothing is impossible to believe. Quite a lot of it is incompatible with the preponderance of evidence about how chemistry, biology, genetics, and physics work. For example, That the entire human race is descended from two people. Inbreeding leads to infertile offspring within 6 or 7 generations.

@moonbus

Nothing is impossible to believe. Quite a lot of it is incompatible with the preponderance of evidence about how chemistry, biology, genetics, and physics work. For example, That the entire human race is descended from two people. Inbreeding leads to infertile offspring within 6 or 7 generations.

But you have to be careful that you do not succumb to everyone pointing to the discipline next door saying - "they, over there have the answer".

Sometimes, when pressing the chemist, the biologist, the geneticist, the physicists each will say "Well the reason is over THERE with THOSE guys." This is a kind of passing of the buck. And you can get an accumulative effect that everyone agrees that the answers are somewhere, just not here.

Personally, I have no problem with early man inbreeding. Man as first designed the Bible says was in such a pristine condition that they lived up to 900 years.

I suspect that the maladies that effect us this far from the original Adam and Eve are far more serious than they would be for nearly perfect specimens of human beings.

Science wise, a non-human giving birth to a human has never been observed IF we are insisting observation has to be paramount in the scientific method.

If you say, "Well it takes TOO long for us to observe." Then we have to admit that the belief that a non-human gave birth (however gradually) to a human is pure speculation.

I think that such a thought that something like an ape gradually became a man is the product mostly of skillful ARTISTS who draw pictures to provide theorist with artwork they need to visualize their theories.

Maybe some of the skeletons we find are examples of PEOPLE degenerating downward into sick or damaged humans rather than primates evolving upwards into humans.

@sonship said
@moonbus

Nothing is impossible to believe. Quite a lot of it is incompatible with the preponderance of evidence about how chemistry, biology, genetics, and physics work. For example, That the entire human race is descended from two people. Inbreeding leads to infertile offspring within 6 or 7 generations.

But you have to be careful that you do not suc ...[text shortened]... degenerating downward into sick or damaged humans rather than primates evolving upwards into humans.

So, how is it that we have to be careful pointing you to other people, but you get to rely on other people from 2000+ years ago?

At least we can go talk to our people, and our people provide some evidence.