Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2015, 06:28 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 05:59 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 03:59 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  If I understand your post correctly, Christian version of the Book of Genesis is just a poor translation of the Hebrew scriptures?
Ok, let me ask a very simple and direct question: by Judaism, with correct understanding of the Talmud and the Torah, is the Earth older then the Sun or not?

And btw, my questions are not an attack on you , and your viewpoint is obviously solicited . I am genuinely interested in your beliefs ( I know very little about Judaism ) , even tho it is very likely that I will disagree with them.

Good question! In fact, it’s such a good question that I have no idea how to answer it. I will still take a really pathetic stab at it anyway.

We love to remind people that the days can’t be 24 hour literal days as we know them to be because according to Genesis, the very tool that we use to count 1 day wasn’t created until “day” 4 of the creation story.

… But I guess I’ve glossed over the obvious discontinuity in the story of creation if science says that earth was created after the sun (I am more accustomed to talking to Christians than to atheists, so I'm treading on new ground here).

When I get stuck on something, I go back to something that one of our greatest Jewish sages who said the following in the 12th century.

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko (a 12th-century student of Maimonides, agreed with this view.)

I found a few interesting articles on the subject. One article suggests that half the water on earth is older than the sun which brings part of the scripture into focus, but not all of it. Another article suggests that the sun already physically existed by the fourth day, but that its purpose as a timekeeping piece was what was created.

We know that the moon was created when a much smaller planet collided with Earth, so these seasons were “created” with the appearance of the moon.

Frankly, I really can’t tread on this any further because I simply lack the education to discuss this any further from the Jewish position. Sorry. Undecided I’ll let you know if I get an answer with more substance from someone who knows more than me.

So what are your thoughts about the documentary hypothesis?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 06:35 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 06:28 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So what are your thoughts about the documentary hypothesis?

I've never even heard of it. Do you have a link to a youtube video that explains it? I have to multitask.

... I'm pretty much always multi-tasking. Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 07:04 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2015 07:45 PM by jennybee.)
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 05:59 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 03:59 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  If I understand your post correctly, Christian version of the Book of Genesis is just a poor translation of the Hebrew scriptures?
Ok, let me ask a very simple and direct question: by Judaism, with correct understanding of the Talmud and the Torah, is the Earth older then the Sun or not?

And btw, my questions are not an attack on you , and your viewpoint is obviously solicited . I am genuinely interested in your beliefs ( I know very little about Judaism ) , even tho it is very likely that I will disagree with them.

Good question! In fact, it’s such a good question that I have no idea how to answer it. I will still take a really pathetic stab at it anyway.

We love to remind people that the days can’t be 24 hour literal days as we know them to be because according to Genesis, the very tool that we use to count 1 day wasn’t created until “day” 4 of the creation story.

… But I guess I’ve glossed over the obvious discontinuity in the story of creation if science says that earth was created after the sun (I am more accustomed to talking to Christians than to atheists, so I'm treading on new ground here).

When I get stuck on something, I go back to something that one of our greatest Jewish sages who said the following in the 12th century.

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko (a 12th-century student of Maimonides, agreed with this view.)

I found a few interesting articles on the subject. One article suggests that half the water on earth is older than the sun which brings part of the scripture into focus, but not all of it. Another article suggests that the sun already physically existed by the fourth day, but that its purpose as a timekeeping piece was what was created.

We know that the moon was created when a much smaller planet collided with Earth, so these seasons were “created” with the appearance of the moon.

Frankly, I really can’t tread on this any further because I simply lack the education to discuss this any further from the Jewish position. Sorry. Undecided I’ll let you know if I get an answer with more substance from someone who knows more than me.

That's an interesting interpretation. One of the OT commentaries I have talks about the culture during this time period. The "scientific" belief was that the sun and moon were light bearers but that light was also thought to exist as a separate entity. In other words, if the sun is behind a cloud, there is still daylight. Therefore, the idea was that light exists without the sun. This is why you see God creating light before the sun. Also, exodus 20 refers to the sabbath and references the days of creation. It seems clear from that (to me anyway)that God was referring to actual days and not long periods of time.

The sun thing never bothered me as a Christian because of some of the reasons you brought up in your post. What I couldn't reconcile was stars being created after the earth. And man from dust, woman from rib. And all things each created in one day's time. And in several cases, out of order re: the evolutionary history of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 07:29 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2015 07:34 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 04:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 08:33 AM)Aliza Wrote:  but that switcharoo he does with gravity to magnetism is…. Well, what the heck is that? Somebody please help me understand what he did there. Blink
He got confused when he said the Earth is losing its gravitational field, he meant to say the the Earth's magnetic field is becoming weaker..


There is truth in this. But it isn't "losing" it is a regular cycle of "switching" polarization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
Quote:The Earth's field has alternated between periods of normal polarity, in which the direction of the field was the same as the present direction, and reverse polarity, in which the field was the opposite. These periods are called chrons. The time spans of chrons are randomly distributed with most being between 0.1 and 1 million years with an average of 450,000 years.
[ED: and more stuff about field cycling]

Technically, the magnetic field is also weakening, since it's generated by the rotation of magnetic substances in the Earth's core. This will (and has) run down over time...

Mars, by comparison, is smaller, and thus possessed less internal rotational energy; today, its core is essentially at rest by comparison to Earth, and its magnetic field is concomitantly weaker.

(23-08-2015 04:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The problem when these religious folk invoke science is that they offer half truths. They know their flock aren't skeptical, they know the flock aren't going to rush home and use google to seek scientific knowledge regarding what their minister has just said.

Indeed; that's what makes it problematic.
(the latter-day proliferation of pseudo- and anti-scientific "alternatives" to anything under the sun would at least indicate that it's a human problem, and not just a religious one, for what tiny bit that might be worth...)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
23-08-2015, 07:38 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 07:04 PM)jennybee Wrote:  That's an interesting interpretation. One of the OT commentaries I have talks about the culture during this time period. The "scientific" belief was that the sun and moon were light bearers but that light was also thought to exist as a separate entity. In other words, if the sun is behind a cloud, there is still daylight. Therefore, the idea was that light exists without the sun. This is why you see God creating light before the sun. Also, exodus 20 refers to the sabbath and references the days of creation. It seems clear from that (to me anyway)that God was referring to actual days and not long periods of time.

Don't you know? All scripture is literally true, unless it contradicts science you accept. Then and only then is it metaphorical.

...

I find the general attitude of "if God created the universe, then understanding the universe is a link to the divine" to be a fine thing. If I were religious - and I sort of flirted with it for a while, when I was about 10 - then that's what I'd believe too. And it's the attitude held by a lot of teachers and professors I have a lot of respect for.

But that does present just that problem with apparently "divinely inspired" scripture. If it is as inextricably bound to contemporaneous understanding (or lack thereof!) - and yes, the Bible is so much that; ditto the Quran, the Pearl of Great Price, the Guru Grunth Sahib, take your pick - then how does that square with a divine source intending a timeless message? The misinterpretation card is all well and good, except for the inevitable Scotsman problem of it...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
23-08-2015, 09:44 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 05:22 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 05:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  It implies that God sticks His hand into it to keep it going or on track.

Hmm, nope. Don't see that it implies any such thing.

I think you're Projecting. Consider

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God". -Wikipedia
[/quote]

What part of "evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God" am I projecting? Consider


[quote]
Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual. -Wikipedia

What part of "Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation" am I projecting? Consider

Those statements are very clear that they believe their God is an active participant in evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 10:00 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 09:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 05:22 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Hmm, nope. Don't see that it implies any such thing.

I think you're Projecting. Consider

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God". -Wikipedia

Quote:Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual. -Wikipedia

What part of "Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation" am I projecting? Consider

Those statements are very clear that they believe their God is an active participant in evolution.

I'm sorry Chas, but I've never seen that as a huge issue. We don't know how abiogenesis began...meh Drinking Beverage

I'm glad, grateful even, there are some religious types that don't follow the model of God doing it in 6 literal days.

There are plenty other bones I have to pick with the catholic church. Evolution totally isn't one of them.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
23-08-2015, 10:10 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 09:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 05:22 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Hmm, nope. Don't see that it implies any such thing.

I think you're Projecting. Consider

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God". -Wikipedia

What part of "evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God" am I projecting? Consider


Quote:Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual. -Wikipedia

What part of "Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation" am I projecting? Consider

Those statements are very clear that they believe their God is an active participant in evolution.

I own Collins' book (though it's currently on loan to my parents). He openly ridicules the idea that God needed to "fiddle" with evolution to make it work, in one of the first chapters. So yes, I think you are. Sorry.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 05:32 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2015 05:51 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 06:35 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 06:28 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So what are your thoughts about the documentary hypothesis?

I've never even heard of it. Do you have a link to a youtube video that explains it? I have to multitask.

... I'm pretty much always multi-tasking. Undecided

Here's a video that explains it:





If you find the archeological study of the bible interesting, you'll really enjoy this:




Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 08:46 AM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 05:59 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 03:59 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  If I understand your post correctly, Christian version of the Book of Genesis is just a poor translation of the Hebrew scriptures?
Ok, let me ask a very simple and direct question: by Judaism, with correct understanding of the Talmud and the Torah, is the Earth older then the Sun or not?
.....
Frankly, I really can’t tread on this any further because I simply lack the education to discuss this any further from the Jewish position. Sorry. Undecided I’ll let you know if I get an answer with more substance from someone who knows more than me.

I just asked someone who is (way) more educated than I am, and it turns out that both the Talmud (written at around 500 CE) and the biblical commentator, Rashi, (11th Century) both record that the sun was already in existence prior to the 4th day of creation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: