What is creation science?

[Ziggy Stardust]

And "the waters" are obviously planets. Everyone knows that.
And the sky is "the midst of the earth". Obvious really.

How can anyone argue against that? Why would anyone want to?

 

[timtofly]

Let's take just one line:

"2) The "Light" of creation was given a name in Genesis, its called "Day" and it was separated from the darkness which became Night. That describes a spinning world."

How does it describe a spinning world? The simple answer is that it doesn't. Having day an night does not necessarily imply a spinning world, in fact for well over a thousand years it was heresy to suggest that the Earth spins around the Sun. The Aristotelian model had the Sun moving in a circle around the immobile Earth.

We know now that we have a day night cycle because the Earth spins while it orbits the sun. In fact the ancient Greeks could probably have told you that, but the biblical description, far from being an accurate scientific description was a description so bad that it got the correct explanation condemned as heresy for fifteen hundred years.

That's why it's nonsense.

And note Timtofly, that this has bugger all to do with my 'scientific bias', and everything to do with the fact that the biblical description of the heavens is just plain crap.

It would seem that your interpretation is just plain wrong, because you only see it as wrong. In fact it would seem that you are using this 1500 year misinterpretation as proof that the Bible is wrong. Current science claims that something hit the earth which caused the moon to form and the earth to spin. God says let there be light and the earth started to spin and there was day and night. What part of being vague while also showing that a spinning earth is day and night would my interpretation be wrong? Since Ziggy did not answer my question about Hebrew influence on Greeks, it would be the Greeks who got the science wrong about a flat earth and even though Ziggy found all these alleged verses that do not actually state the earth is flat, that it was the Bible that corrupted science. I don't have to learn that the ancients were wrong before knowing the correct science is right. I knew that the earth rotated and revolved around the sun and there is nothing in Genesis that says that is wrong. If one decided with the science of their day that the earth was flat, the Bible would not contradict that either. One could easily do that by interpreting the verse the same way Ziggy did. But to claim that the Bible is trying to make some scientific principle is what the skeptics have been denying, yet they then turn around and use the Bible as a scientific treatise to claim the Bible is wrong.

People suggest that the Bible has been corrupted by human influence and then complain that that humans got the science wrong in the Bible. Perhaps the Bible has not changed, but still is relevant to the science of the day without causing one to have a disconnect with reality. Especially when it is dubious that the Bible was even used as a scientific treatise at any point in history. If Genesis had not been written down in the Pentateuch, then the Hebrews would not have had a story at all about the past. It would be a huge leap in logic to say that they were attempting to be scientist and making observed scientific comments. As for the verses that Ziggy quoted it would be hard to say that they were based on a scientific mindset, or just some ones observation of what was going on around them, and whether or not the actual "science" of the day was also effecting their ponderings. Just because the Church called modern science heretical had nothing to do with the Bible, but because they were using bad science to interpret the Bible. It was not that the Bible was dictating bad science.

I would like to see proof that the Hebrews scriptures influenced the science of the Greeks. I would like to see proof that the church's science was from the Bible and not the current science of the day. Were not the early church theologians educated according to Greek philosophy and their views on science? It seems relatively easy to look up a verse in the Bible and claim that it makes our point. Every one who reads the Bible does that. It does not automatically give one authority to interpret it the way they want though. You may mock my interpretation, but you cannot then turn around and say your interpretation is any better. Well you can, but it would be hard to prove your point.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ziggy merely opted that the Bible reflects the science of the time, using the tools of their time.

To claim the writers knew more than their peers at the time will need a little more conclusive proof than: Look! Day and Night. They knew the Earth was spinning. No, they thought the Sun was moving and the Earth was unmoveable. Mind you, we are talking about the claim that the Bible describes accurately how the Earth and life was formed. This is hilariously silly and not the Bible's intention I feel.

The Greeks knew the Earth was round. I didn't answer your question because it puzzled me.

edit: By the way, I never claimed the Bible corrupts science. That's down to Young Earth creationists and those who claim the writers had a divine knowledge of how stuff came to be. Your beef is with them. They drag the Bible in that arena where it is devoured by the lions of actual science. For me the Bible was intended as a work about morality. In that light it doesn't matter one bit whether people believed the Eart was spinning or the Sun was racing around it.

Especially when it is dubious that the Bible was even used as a scientific treatise at any point in history

I totally agree. I'd take it one step further and simply state that it wasn't.

 

[brennan]

Tim it seems you are entirely missing the point. The bible says little other than that there is day and night. It doesn't say anything about why there is a day/night cycle it merely says there is. That isn't an explanation it's a description. A description of the world (in which everyone who has ever been outside for more than a day already knows that there is day and night) that includes 'there is day and night' is not a scentific explanation of the world.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Mars was smaller than the Earth before and after the events ~4 bya... And the asteroid belt is coated in ice, thats where researchers have found our water. Thats the solar system's freeze line, the place most appropriate for a planet to form early on. And thats where the Enuma Elish places Tiamat, the celestial dragon.

The events of Genesis were supposedly only 6000 years ago. Mars' size doesn't matter; it was long-frozen by then.

If the asteroid belt had been an appropriate place for a planet, there would be one there. Jupiter's influence made that impossible, unless you want to count Ceres as a planet.

Funny, neither Pioneer nor Voyager ever found a dragon in that part of the Solar System.

Earth is the word God gave the dry land when it appeared from under the water. It is not this planet...

*looks out the window at the dry land outside* Sure looks like Earth to me.

And that rotation (collision) separates night and day

No, it doesn't. The collision created the seasons by knocking Earth over on its axis so we get seasons. We had day and night long before that. And don't tell me that's not what Genesis says. Genesis isn't a credible astronomy reference.

So does the current scientific models. It would depend on what sun and stars you are talking about. Light did not originate in the sun. The sun was "dust" that allegedly turned into a star.

Besides Genesis did not say that. God created matter and then added light to that matter. In Genesis the earth was the first recipient of that light and then later the sun and stars received their light.

I invite you to check out the website I linked earlier. It explains that yes, the Sun did used to be dust left over from an older star that exploded (went supernova). That's how the Universe recycles itself. Some day the outer layers of our own Sun will be blown off into space and may eventually be part of a new star. There is no "allegedly" about it.

And yes, light does originate in stars. It certainly doesn't originate in planets!

 

[peter grimes]

The Earth did not form that way, the word refers to the dry land, not this planet. So how did night and day come to exist? This world was hit by something(s) large enough to change its orbital parameters and this happened long after the giant impact forming the Moon.

News to me. Source?

Genesis does mention the LHB (not in those terms of course), God's spirit (sumerian "winds") interacted (collided) with a dark, water covered world and there was light. That came after the dark, water covered world described in Gen 1:2. And what was the light? The creation of day and night - the world was spinning near a star. Thats why the Sun and Moon dont become relevant until after the world was given its new orbit, its new "sky".

This is precisely the shoehorning I was talking about: "it does mention LHB if you interpret things in a roundabout way to make them fit". You can make just about anything mean anything else that way. It's useless, which is why science doesn't do that. Creationism does. Creationism isn't sciencey.

In any case this sounds like Velikovsky. You should read him if you haven't yet already. And if you're interested in Phonecian settlements in North America you should read Barry Fell. Full disclosure, I really enjoyed reading them both and found their ideas quite exciting. Oh, Graham Hancock, too! But sadly they are all guilty of shoehorning and ignoring contrary evidence. They stick to a couple bits of evidence that support their positions and can't seem to acknowledge genuine rebuttals.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What's an LHB?

 

[Arakhor]

The Late Heavy Bombardment.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But there already was light back then. So now light means dark and light? And the world was already revolving. And added to that, the water covered world, if it existed, was 2,5 billion years ago, after the bombardment which was about 4 billion years ago.

This is far worse than shoehorning.

 

[timtofly]

Ziggy merely opted that the Bible reflects the science of the time, using the tools of their time.

To claim the writers knew more than their peers at the time will need a little more conclusive proof than: Look! Day and Night. They knew the Earth was spinning. No, they thought the Sun was moving and the Earth was unmoveable. Mind you, we are talking about the claim that the Bible describes accurately how the Earth and life was formed. This is hilariously silly and not the Bible's intention I feel.

The Greeks knew the Earth was round. I didn't answer your question because it puzzled me.

edit: By the way, I never claimed the Bible corrupts science. That's down to Young Earth creationists and those who claim the writers had a divine knowledge of how stuff came to be. Your beef is with them. They drag the Bible in that arena where it is devoured by the lions of actual science. For me the Bible was intended as a work about morality. In that light it doesn't matter one bit whether people believed the Eart was spinning or the Sun was racing around it.

Especially when it is dubious that the Bible was even used as a scientific treatise at any point in history

I totally agree. I'd take it one step further and simply state that it wasn't.

Is the point that people are justifying science to the Bible, or justify the Bible to science?

Because:

Tim it seems you are entirely missing the point. The bible says little other than that there is day and night. It doesn't say anything about why there is a day/night cycle it merely says there is. That isn't an explanation it's a description. A description of the world (in which everyone who has ever been outside for more than a day already knows that there is day and night) that includes 'there is day and night' is not a scentific explanation of the world.

One would be hard pressed after knowing the truth to interpret it any other way.

Saying that day and night is a cycle is a scientific observation though. It may lead to other questions like why is there a day and night cycle. 10,000 years ago people even recognized the stars as being important in that day and night cycle. The problem is that even stars seemed fixed in their position. And they are still pretty much in the same position today. So describing them as fixed would not be a poor description. We know today that things are expanding and in constant movement, but most of that is from recording the motion of the stars for the last 10,000 years. Even though they did not have modern tools human still felt the need to do so. That knowledge was passed on and was built upon or else we may not be as far as we are today. If the Bible is only descriptive, I do not see how it in itself could have been misleading. It was the dogmatic point of human interpretation that held back science.


If I really wanted to argue the point though it does state that the earth was spinning. There was no sun even though there was light. The light was not orbiting the earth. The light was shining on the earth as it was spinning thus causing day and night. People mock that there was no sun before day 4, but the earth was already spinning for 3 days before the sun was sending light out.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not saying the Bible is missleading, simply because it's aim is not to misslead. If anything people who attribute stuff to the Bible which aren't there are missleading. And when people claim Genesis was a historical event are the ones mocking the Bible by inviting ridicule.

Where does the Bible state the Earth is spinning?

 

[Berzerker]

Lol at the genesis.

That dumb crap actually says God made light before the sun and the stars.

The "Light" didn't come from the sun, it came from God's spirit or wind interacting (colliding) with the primordial "deep" - a dark, water covered world. Genesis describes the creation of the dry land and our sky; the sun, moon and stars only become relevant to the story after the creation of Heaven and Earth.

Let's take just one line:

"2) The "Light" of creation was given a name in Genesis, its called "Day" and it was separated from the darkness which became Night. That describes a spinning world."

How does it describe a spinning world?

I just told you...Night and Day are the result of a spinning world near a star. The seasons are the result of that spinning world having a tilted axis.

Having day an night does not necessarily imply a spinning world, in fact for well over a thousand years it was heresy to suggest that the Earth spins around the Sun. The Aristotelian model had the Sun moving in a circle around the immobile Earth.

Aristotle didn't write Genesis

And "the waters" are obviously planets. Everyone knows that. And the sky is "the midst of the earth". Obvious really.

How can anyone argue against that? Why would anyone want to?

The planets were thought of in various ways, to many peoples they were "wanderers" (sheep to the Fremont of Utah) and they were rivers and flowing water as in Dante, Mars was the red river. And how did you get the sky being in the midst of the Earth? Heaven was placed amidst the waters before Earth was created. The asteroid belt divides the solar system, thats where Heaven and Earth were created.

Tim it seems you are entirely missing the point. The bible says little other than that there is day and night. It doesn't say anything about why there is a day/night cycle it merely says there is. That isn't an explanation it's a description. A description of the world (in which everyone who has ever been outside for more than a day already knows that there is day and night) that includes 'there is day and night' is not a scentific explanation of the world.

Genesis says God's spirit hovered above a dark, water covered world and there was "Light" - this light was called Day and was separated from the darkness called Night. How did the world get day and night? Something hit it, something that generated light and spun the world.

The events of Genesis were supposedly only 6000 years ago. Mars' size doesn't matter; it was long-frozen by then.

Genesis doesn't say it all happened 6,000 years ago, it says it happened before the appearance of dry land and life. Our science says that happened <4 bya.

If the asteroid belt had been an appropriate place for a planet, there would be one there. Jupiter's influence made that impossible, unless you want to count Ceres as a planet.

You cant argue the asteroid belt is not an appropriate place for a planet and then tell us Jupiter prevented a planet forming there, according to your logic Jupiter wasn't needed. But how did Jupiter form before planets closer to the sun? According to astronomers the planets have migrated from their original locations, the Enuma Elish describes their wandering. The freeze line is appropriate for a planet and thats where the Enuma Elish places our primordial world.

Funny, neither Pioneer nor Voyager ever found a dragon in that part of the Solar System.

The dragon is a metaphor

*looks out the window at the dry land outside* Sure looks like Earth to me.

And the water isn't "Earth"

No, it doesn't. The collision created the seasons by knocking Earth over on its axis so we get seasons. We had day and night long before that. And don't tell me that's not what Genesis says. Genesis isn't a credible astronomy reference.

Night and Day are a product of rotation near a star, before that the world was in darkness.

 

[peter grimes]

We know today that things are expanding and in constant movement, but most of that is from recording the motion of the stars for the last 10,000 years.

No, it's from the last ~100 years. And it wasn't measuring star positions that revealed the expansion of the universe. Reliable positional observations weren't even systematically carried out until the 1600s with the adoption of the telescope (Thank you, Dutchies!)

The expansion of the universe was proven by Hubble through measurements of the redshift "doppler effect" of *galaxies*, not stars.

There are only a handful of galaxies visible to the naked eye, and even in excellent viewing conditions (like those that prevailed pretty much everywhere on earth after the campfires died down until the last few thousand years) they appear as smudgy areas of dim light*. The ancients had no way of knowing that our planet orbited a star that resides in a galaxy of a hundred thousand million other stars, and this galaxy is one of a trillion others occupying an infinitesimal amount of utterly empty space in a never-ending expanding universe.


*just this past summer I "discovered" the Andromeda Galaxy with the help of Google skymap. First with a telescope, then with binoculars, and now I can grab it naked eye in New Hampshire. It's incredible, and I can only wonder what our ancestors thought about it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And how did I get the sky being in the midst of the Earth?

Read the Bible passage you responded to. The Daniel one. Bible: tree midst of the Earth, you: tree is in the sky.

We know how the Earth was created. It wasn't in the asteroid belt. Do you know what science means by the way? It's what this thread should be about.

 

[Arakhor]

Berzerker, I get that creationists insist that Genesis is accurate because that's a pillar of their faith. I don't get your obsession with insisting that Genesis 1 is not only an accurate model of how the solar system was formed, but also that this is not simply a coincidence, yet you've never provided any possible reason how the Bible compilers could know this.

 

[timtofly]

I'm not saying the Bible is missleading, simply because it's aim is not to misslead. If anything people who attribute stuff to the Bible which aren't there are missleading. And when people claim Genesis was a historical event are the ones mocking the Bible by inviting ridicule.

Where does the Bible state the Earth is spinning?

Genesis says God's spirit hovered above a dark, water covered world and there was "Light" - this light was called Day and was separated from the darkness called Night. How did the world get day and night? Something hit it, something that generated light and spun the world.

The earth could only have day and night if it was spinning and the light was fixed. There was no sun light for three day/night cycles.

Nothing had to hit the earth. When God separated the light form the darkness, that was God "putting" a massive spin on the earth. Now we have some urban lingo in the thread.

No, it's from the last ~100 years. And it wasn't measuring star positions that revealed the expansion of the universe. Reliable positional observations weren't even systematically carried out until the 1600s with the adoption of the telescope (Thank you, Dutchies!)

The expansion of the universe was proven by Hubble through measurements of the redshift "doppler effect" of *galaxies*, not stars.

There are only a handful of galaxies visible to the naked eye, and even in excellent viewing conditions (like those that prevailed pretty much everywhere on earth after the campfires died down until the last few thousand years) they appear as smudgy areas of dim light*. The ancients had no way of knowing that our planet orbited a star that resides in a galaxy of a hundred thousand million other stars, and this galaxy is one of a trillion others occupying an infinitesimal amount of utterly empty space in a never-ending expanding universe.


*just this past summer I "discovered" the Andromeda Galaxy with the help of Google skymap. First with a telescope, then with binoculars, and now I can grab it naked eye in New Hampshire. It's incredible, and I can only wonder what our ancestors thought about it.

Why wonder? Did you not point out with a resounding No at the beginning of your post that they had no inclination about the stars. Add orbit with inclination and you have the zodiac. The zodiac is not just about astrology. That was a mystic application. The ancients were very much into the stars and their motions. Now I may be off in that they set the foundation, but then again, I may not be. It was the Babylonians who perfected the 360 degree pattern.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The earth could only have day and night if it was spinning and the light was fixed. There was no sun light for three day/night cycles.

Couple of things.

My claim is: mentioning a day/night cycle does not mean you realize the Earth is spinning. Even in our language we talk about the sun as if it's moving. It's an understandable mistake to make. A night/day cycle could also come about with a fixed Earth orbited by the sun.

Second, I'm not talking about the inner continuity of the Genesis story. Because as I tried to explain, it defeats the point of the story. I cannot stand someone pointing out some inconsistency in a good movie either. Who cares. It's a story, which is meant to be enjoyed, or learned from, or fascinate. It's not meant to be dissected.

The only reason I put up the Bible passages of a fixed Earth and a moving Sun is to provide the context in which the Bible was written. If I had been alive back then with the knowledge at hand I would think I lived on a fixed Earth with an orbiting sun. Because it very much looks as if they do.

 

[Berzerker]

News to me. Source?

http://www.nasa.gov/ames/new-nasa-research-shows-giant-asteroids-battered-early-earth/#.VBJUo6N2440

Now whats interesting about that article is the authors identify several impactors hundreds of miles in diameter... According to the Enuma Elish our proto-world (Tiamat, biblical tehom) was attacked by several weapons called winds. These were the moons of another planet colliding with our world.

Or you could just look at the Moon if you need a source, those dark spots began forming after the LHB and they face us because the Earth was plastered by something big enough to send waves of debris into the Moon.

This is precisely the shoehorning I was talking about: "it does mention LHB if you interpret things in a roundabout way to make them fit". You can make just about anything mean anything else that way. It's useless, which is why science doesn't do that. Creationism does. Creationism isn't sciencey.

If the science and Genesis are incompatible I couldn't "shoehorn" anything and you wouldn't be left with such a meaningless criticism. Accusing me of shoehorning is an admission you aint got nothing for a rebuttal.

But there already was light back then. So now light means dark and light?

Light doesn't mean dark

And the world was already revolving.

Probably, but it was revolving further away from the sun where it was dark. The impact(s) pushed the proto-Earth to a new orbit closer to the sun leaving behind the asteroid belt and the rest of our water.

And added to that, the water covered world, if it existed, was 2,5 billion years ago, after the bombardment which was about 4 billion years ago.

This is far worse than shoehorning.

The water covered world existed > 4 bya, didn't we have this discussion before? Our oldest "rock" (zircons) formed in water ~4.3-4 bya. I dont know where you got 2.5 bya, not from me.

And when people claim Genesis was a historical event are the ones mocking the Bible by inviting ridicule.

Somebody else gets the credit for your charming behavior?

Where does the Bible state the Earth is spinning?

When God's spirit or wind interacted with a dark, water covered world to produce day and night.

And how did I get the sky being in the midst of the Earth?

Read the Bible passage you responded to. The Daniel one. Bible: tree midst of the Earth, you: tree is in the sky.

The world tree/mountain is celestial, even that passage says the tree reaches to Heaven. Why are you changing the subject?

We know how the Earth was created. It wasn't in the asteroid belt. Do you know what science means by the way? It's what this thread should be about.

How do you know where the Earth was 4.4 bya? Our water was at the asteroid belt. You didn't know what the LHB was or that we had surface water before it, you shouldn't be insulting other people even if you did know what you were talking about.

Berzerker, I get that creationists insist that Genesis is accurate because that's a pillar of their faith. I don't get your obsession with insisting that Genesis 1 is not only an accurate model of how the solar system was formed, but also that this is not simply a coincidence, yet you've never provided any possible reason how the Bible compilers could know this.

Many people all over the world knew... How? I dont know, God? The Norse world tree with its 9 branches is a symbolic representation of our solar system. Siberian shaman held rituals before 9 trees. The Sumerian cylinder seal VA 243 shows a star surrounded by 11 objects matching our solar system and the description of the celestial gods in the Enuma Elish.

Chichen Itza has 9 levels representing the 9 lords of the night and the Toltec heaven had 13 layers with the creator occupying 2 levels. The Incan "Genesis" depicts the creator as an ellipse joining or dividing two groups (4 & 5) of objects with the Sun and Moon nearby. The Nazca monkey looks down between his two hands with 4 and 5 fingers while his tail swirls round and round like the solar system.

What all these depictions have in common, beside the numbers 9 and 12 (or 13 for the Toltec dualists), is that they account for more planets than we can see with the naked eye. And thats what Democritus reported to his fellow Greeks upon returning from his travels to Egypt and Mesopotamia.

http://net.indra.com/~dheyser/fremont/fremont_a.html

Check out the scene at the top, the creator off to the lower right is "hunting" the horned deity between the 8 sheep. That picture matches the gods before the creation of Heaven and Earth in the Enuma Elish.

So why do the numbers 6 and 7 play a role in creation mythology? Look again at the image from Utah, the horned deity (proto-Earth) is the 6th in line from the approaching creator. The Earth is now the 7th planet from that creator.

The earth could only have day and night if it was spinning and the light was fixed. There was no sun light for three day/night cycles.

The sun did exist, it was there before any of this happened. It was just further away from the proto-Earth. Now you raise an interesting point, why does the sun appear on the 4th day? I suggest its because the story has a narrative and the sun (moon and stars) only becomes relevant at that point.

Other events had to occur first, like the world acquiring spin from the collision, the formation of Heaven in the middle of the solar system (the debris left behind at the crossing point), and the appearance of dry land and vegetation. At that point Genesis deals with our new sky.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Light doesn't mean dark

Your argument, not mine.

Probably, but it was revolving further away from the sun where it was dark. The impact(s) pushed the proto-Earth to a new orbit closer to the sun leaving behind the asteroid belt and the rest of our water.

One shred of evidence for this please.

The water covered world existed > 4 bya, didn't we have this discussion before? Our oldest "rock" (zircons) formed in water ~4.3-4 bya. I dont know where you got 2.5 bya, not from me.

No, I got it from scientists, not people making it up as they go along. And we have had this before. Because there's water in one place it doesn't follow it was everywhere.

When God's spirit or wind interacted with a dark, water covered world to produce day and night.

Where does it say the earth was spinning?

The world tree/mountain is celestial, even that passage says the tree reaches to Heaven. Why are you changing the subject?

How am I changing the subject. Bible: midst of earth, you: sky.

The midst of Earth is in it's center, in the core. Not on the surface.

How do you know where the Earth was 4.4 bya? Our water was at the asteroid belt. You didn't know what the LHB was or that we had surface water before it, you shouldn't be insulting other people even if you did know what you were talking about.

I didn't know the abrieviation. And I'm not arguing against "surface water" I'm arguing against the world being covered with water.

How do you know what I'm talking about if you don't even read what I write?

 

[brennan]

I just told you...Night and Day are the result of a spinning world near a star.

Night and Day are a blatantly obvious fact to anyone. The bible only says that there is night and day. It doesn't say anything about the world spinning near a star, nor what causes the seasons (well it might, but I can guarrantee you that it won't be anything about the Earth at the relevant latitude being tilted away from the incoming solar radiation.)

Your case seems to be that the simple declaration that there is day and night implies an understanding by the writers of genesis that they knew what caused that cycle. Can you see that the one does not follow from the other?