Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[David Lamb]

There is no age at the speed of light. That is why we can still see the early universe.

I was answering Warden of the Storm who had mentioned something about 6000 years. He said that the bible doesn't mention 6000 years. I agreed, but said that that doesn't mean that the universe must be billions of years old. Some of the features of Creation show that God created a functioning universe. The sun, moon and stars had the God-given purpose of giving light on the earth, so that implies that the light was already reaching the earth at creation, not, as is sometimes claimed, taking millions of years or more for light from the farthest stars to reach earth.

 

[Diamond72]

that that doesn't mean that the universe must be billions of years old.

My son, a computer engineer, often reminds me of the precision and exactness of mathematics, akin to the way God describes His Justice as exact and precise. While working on quality control for nano resistors at Wolfspeed, a $15 billion factory, he witnessed firsthand the meticulous nature of science at a microscopic scale. Although things can become complicated and beyond our understanding, it doesn't diminish the precision of the universe. Consider a Tesla, with its 20,000 individual parts, all working together in harmony most of the time. This collaboration exemplifies the precision found in both science and the natural order.

 

[Diamond72]

"Vet" where I live in the UK means something different.

I am a Vietnam era "Vet" also, but I usually do not talk about it. Things were different back in the 70's than they are now. I have a lot of friends with a lot of stories to tell though.

 

[Reneep]

GOD DID NOT DECEIVE ANYONE ABOUT CREATION . MANKIND NEEDS NO HELP DECEIVING THEMSELVES. AND WHAT MANKIND DOESNT COMPLETELY DO TO THEMSELVES THE ENEMY OF YOUR SOUL WILL HELP AND PROVIDE "THE PROOF ", BUT HE IS THE FATHER OF LIES AND LIARS. The only embedded age in creation is mankind chose to believe in anti catistrophicism. Which makes Gods creation look warn out. But those are choices, wrong choices. Wrong faith.

 

[Diamond72]

The only embedded age in creation is mankind chose to believe in anti catistrophicism.

Stephen Jay Gould, along with Niles Eldredge, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in1971. This theory suggests that evolution is characterized by long periods of stability interrupted by short, rapid changes, rather than a slow, continuous process. While this theory doesn't directly challenge catastrophism, it does offer an alternative view to the gradualism that was previously dominant in evolutionary biology. (Wiki)

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for explaining. "Vet" where I live in the UK means something different. It's an abbreviation for "veterinary surgeon," an animal doctor! Sorry about the lateness of this acknowledgment, but I missed your post, and have only just seen it.

Thanks for the info, David.

LOL -- not a veterinary doctor.

That made me chuckle!

 

[AV1611VET]

I am a Vietnam era "Vet" also, but I usually do not talk about it. Things were different back in the 70's than they are now. I have a lot of friends with a lot of stories to tell though.

I salute you!

 

[AV1611VET]

The only embedded age in creation is mankind chose to believe in anti catistrophicism. Which makes Gods creation look warn out. But those are choices, wrong choices. Wrong faith.

Can't something be old, without being warn out?

Some things are better with age, not worse.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I was answering Warden of the Storm who had mentioned something about 6000 years. He said that the bible doesn't mention 6000 years. I agreed, but said that that doesn't mean that the universe must be billions of years old. Some of the features of Creation show that God created a functioning universe. The sun, moon and stars had the God-given purpose of giving light on the earth, so that implies that the light was already reaching the earth at creation, not, as is sometimes claimed, taking millions of years or more for light from the farthest stars to reach earth.

The Universe "must" not be billions of years old. It is just what we see and mesaure empirically. Many different sciences give us examples of things and features that are way older than 6000 years old.

• archaealogy shows thatGobekli Tepe dates from 9500 BC, hence 11500 yeard old, the Lascaux paintings are dated between 17000 and 22000 years old
• Ice core drills give us continuous ice cores of 40.000 years old and more.
• The Deccan Traps are date a volcanic feature in India estimated 66 to 65 million years old, from an eruption that lasted 30 000 years.
• The ocean floor of the Atlantic Ocean has gradual older material as we move further away from the mid oceanic rift, the oldest crust being 145 million years old.
• Astronomy indicates also a Universe much older than 6000 years old. Just our own Galaxy has a a radius of approxiately 100.000 ligt years. In a 6000 year old universe we wouldn't be able to see neither the galatci center nor the outer rim. But we cann see both.

All these are just a few of the examples that the Earth and the Universe are much older than 6.000 years.

 

[dlamberth]

The Universe "must" not be billions of years old. It is just what we see and mesaure empirically. Many different sciences give us examples of things and features that are way older than 6000 years old.

• archaealogy shows thatGobekli Tepe dates from 9500 BC, hence 11500 yeard old, the Lascaux paintings are dated between 17000 and 22000 years old
• Ice core drills give us continuous ice cores of 40.000 years old and more.
• The Deccan Traps are date a volcanic feature in India estimated 66 to 65 million years old, from an eruption that lasted 30 000 years.
• The ocean floor of the Atlantic Ocean has gradual older material as we move further away from the mid oceanic rift, the oldest crust being 145 million years old.
• Astronomy indicates also a Universe much older than 6000 years old. Just our own Galaxy has a a radius of approxiately 100.000 ligt years. In a 6000 year old universe we wouldn't be able to see neither the galatci center nor the outer rim. But we cann see both.

All these are just a few of the examples that the Earth and the Universe are much older than 6.000 years.

I like to use the track of the Yellowstone Hot Spot as it burned it's way to it's present location that can be traced back through 50 million years of history.

 

[Kylie]

Uh huh, right. Where's your evidence of that?

Wait, hold on...

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that only Christianity has things that it can point to and say, "See this thing here? It proves Chrsitianity is correct!"

Do you really believe that no other religion has this?

REALLY?

The truth of the Bible as a scientific textbook is a different question from whether or not Christ is God.

But when the truth of that book is the only way to make a determination, then it becomes rather important, doncha think?

I read the posts, not the headers.

That's not my problem.

It comes from the dating of Paul's conversion among other internal elements of the books. But the point is, there's a general consensus for those dates. Do you accept scholastic consensus, or not?

Give me a source for these claims please.

Not just something that repeats the claims, but something that justifies the claims.

You may not be interested, but I am repeating it because I am once again highlighting that explaining Islam's origins requires no elaborate speculative theories.

Then you have no interest in an intellectually honest discussion about this subject.

Still missing the point and addressing strawmen.

Oh, this is getting tired.

The dating of the epistles themselves isn't really all that relevant, though a 20 year gap is nothing to sneeze at when it comes to the gap between historical events and their documentation. Most of the time historians are working with sources much, much further removed.

But it does allow errors to creep in.

How accurate would you be if you tried to write about something that happened twenty years ago? Even if you were there, you'd have a tough time getting the details right.

And this matters because...? Why should we be more skeptical about historical events because we don't like what is claimed about them?

Hold on, now who's committing logical fallacies? You claim I disbelieve because I "don't like" what is being claimed?

I don't care what is being claims. If it's the truth then it's the truth.

My point is that a claim of a military leader is a lot more plausible than God sending himself to earth in physical form. EAxtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We've been through this.

No, but he met Peter and James and the disciples and confirmed what he was taught about Jesus. Both of whom died claiming the same thing...so perhaps they lied to Paul, but then the problem only shifts to them.

And given that he was persecuting Christians, he surely knew what their whole thing was about.

I''ve repeatedly pointed out that your counterarguments aren't addressing my point and stated it plainly. The point is about required explanations, not about how the two have spread over history or how quickly Christianity spread. there is no naturalistic explanation for the evidence surrounding the resurrection. Either key evidence must be dismissed because it is inconvenient and for no other reason, or a great deal of speculation must be

You are acting as though the resurrection has been proven as a matter of history. You may believe it, but that doesn't mean that everyone does, and I certainly don't.

Accusing me of bias for being a Christian is most certainly an ad hominem, it's an appeal to motives. I could just as easily say that you are biased because you are an atheist, but that wouldn't really be relevant to the argument at hand. The only thing that matters is the argument itself, though bias may come into play such as in your usage of the "extraordinary claims" maxim where you codify your biases and present them as the argument.

So are you suggesting that you'd be happy to give up your faith if valid evidence against the existence of Jesus as the son of God was presented to you?

 

[Kylie]

Science and the Bible do not contradict each other at all. The only real contradictions are the traditions of man and Jesus warns us about this. Many times I have had people try to show a contradiction and they ultimately always fail to accomplish their objective.

There are two creation accounts in the Bible, and not only do they contradict with science, they contradict themselves.

So you'll need to do more than claim there is no contradiction for me to believe you.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are two creation accounts in the Bible, and not only do they contradict with science, they contradict themselves.

Negative.

They do not contradict themselves.

They both comprise what is called a framework narrative -- a story within a story.

Here they are, in non-contradictory chronological order:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
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.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
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:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27a So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

So you'll need to do more than claim there is no contradiction for me to believe you.

Time to believe.

Either that, or make something up to confuse yourself so you don't have to believe it.

 

[Fervent]

Wait, hold on...

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that only Christianity has things that it can point to and say, "See this thing here? It proves Chrsitianity is correct!"

Do you really believe that no other religion has this?

REALLY?

Perhaps you could share a few?

But when the truth of that book is the only way to make a determination, then it becomes rather important, doncha think?

Depends on how we approach the book. It doesn't need to be the literal and inerrant word of God for it to be reliable and capable of providing evidence of the historical events. We can separate the claims from one another and examine them somewhat independently.

That's not my problem.

Ok.

Give me a source for these claims please.

Not just something that repeats the claims, but something that justifies the claims.

What would you consider a source? You've been provided with scholars giving their opinions, so what other source would you require?

Then you have no interest in an intellectually honest discussion about this subject.

Not at all, the qualitative difference of the naturalistic explanations between Christianity and Islam is central to my argument regarding them. Your lack of comprehension(either feigned or genuine) is cause for me to repeat that Islam is readily explained without any sort of elaborate ad hoc speculations to fit the generally agreed upon facts.

Oh, this is getting tired.

Perhaps if you took the time to try to understand my argument, rather than replying with irrelevant statements I wouldn't need to point out you continue to attack strawmen?

But it does allow errors to creep in.

Errors, sure. But the Bible doesn't need to be inerrant for the resurrection to be historical.

How accurate would you be if you tried to write about something that happened twenty years ago? Even if you were there, you'd have a tough time getting the details right.

I think I'd get the central facts right, though of course I might misremember minor details like the color of robes or the precise time of day. But the central event I'd say it'd be fairly unlikely to get wrong, especially osmething so out of left field as watching someone die a horrible death on Friday and then eating fish with them on Monday.

Hold on, now who's committing logical fallacies? You claim I disbelieve because I "don't like" what is being claimed?

Did you or did you not insinuate that more skepticism is required because Jesus is claimed to be the Son of God?

I don't care what is being claims. If it's the truth then it's the truth.

My point is that a claim of a military leader is a lot more plausible than God sending himself to earth in physical form. EAxtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We've been through this.

Yeah, except the maxim is either a)circular by beginning with a conclusion of unlikelihood, or b)special pleading by raising personal incredulity to the level of argument. It's literally codifying your bias into a maxim and arguing that the bias is legitimate.

And given that he was persecuting Christians, he surely knew what their whole thing was about.

What, exactly, is this supposed to mean?

You are acting as though the resurrection has been proven as a matter of history. You may believe it, but that doesn't mean that everyone does, and I certainly don't.

No, I am arguing that the resurrection is the best explanation of the historical facts even if we limit those facts to those that are broadly agreed upon by Christian and non-Christian scholars, so long as we do not reject it as impossible before we begin our investigation and use ordinary epistemic heuristics like Oxxam's razor. Naturalistic explanations require numerous speculative adjustments to the evidence such as it is, and no single theory is sufficient for explaining the basic historical facts on its own.

So are you suggesting that you'd be happy to give up your faith if valid evidence against the existence of Jesus as the son of God was presented to you?

I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd accept it. Reading through the naturalistic attacks on it have me fairly convinced that no such evidence exists, though there are lots of bad arguments like the one you semi-presented that appeared to be based at least partially on Carrier's mythical hypthesis.

 

[Diamond72]

There are two creation accounts in the Bible, and not only do they contradict with science, they contradict themselves.

Not even one tiny bit if you read the Hebrew. Adam in in Chapter one is mankind, Adam in Chapter two was the man Adam. We have generations or the genealogy from Adam to Jesus. Many people have tried to show me contradictions and they have all failed. Every single one of them. You have failed here because you did not look to see that the spelling of the word Adam is different in the Hebrew Langugage.

 

[Kylie]

Negative.

They do not contradict themselves.

They both comprise what is called a framework narrative -- a story within a story.

Here they are, in non-contradictory chronological order:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
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.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
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:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27a So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Yeah, repeating them isn't going to work.

Genesis 1 says that water animals and birds were created on the fifth day Gen 1:20), and land animals were created on the sixth day (Gen 1:24). And after the animals were created, God made Adam and Eve together (Gen 1:27).

Genesis 2 says that God created Adam by himself first (Gen 2:7), then created all the animals on the same day to see if there was an appropriate companion for him (Gen 2:18-20). And when no suitable companion was found, God made Eve from Adam's rib (Gen 2:21-22).

So which is it, AV? Did God make any animals before he made Adam, or did he make Adam first and then make the animals in an effort to find a companion?

Time to believe.

Either that, or make something up to confuse yourself so you don't have to believe it.

Spouting slogans at me isn't going to make your interpretation of the Bible any more plausible.

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps you could share a few?

Here's a source that claims to present scientific truths from the Koran to show that Islam is the one true religion: https://www.kalamullah.com/Books/Scientific Truths in The Quran.pdf

Here's a source that does the same for the Vedas: The Advanced Scientific Knowledge in Ancient Indian Scriptures: A Look at Modern Discoveries

And here's a source that claims that Bahai is true because it fulfilled prophecies. https://medium.com/@avrelseale/why-bahai-it-comes-down-to-five-questions-1ef03fcc155b

So yeah, pretty much any religion that is held by people today has some argument which states, "X is true, and that proves that religion Y is true!"

Depends on how we approach the book. It doesn't need to be the literal and inerrant word of God for it to be reliable and capable of providing evidence of the historical events. We can separate the claims from one another and examine them somewhat independently.

But if it isn't meant to be taken literally, how can you claim that some historical account mentioned by it is real?

What would you consider a source? You've been provided with scholars giving their opinions, so what other source would you require?

Something that proves that he got this in the year you claimed and not at some later date. 1 Corinthians is the earliest record of the creed, so how do you know it was around before then?

Not at all, the qualitative difference of the naturalistic explanations between Christianity and Islam is central to my argument regarding them. Your lack of comprehension(either feigned or genuine) is cause for me to repeat that Islam is readily explained without any sort of elaborate ad hoc speculations to fit the generally agreed upon facts.

Your entire point of view is based on their being a fundamental difference in the origin of these faiths, and yet you can't provide any justification for this claim.

Perhaps if you took the time to try to understand my argument, rather than replying with irrelevant statements I wouldn't need to point out you continue to attack strawmen?

Perhaps if you took the time to try to understand my argument, you'd actually provide a basis for your claims instead of just making stuff up (like your idea that Muhammad was just hallucinating or something when he came up with Islam).

Errors, sure. But the Bible doesn't need to be inerrant for the resurrection to be historical.

Then how do you determine that the Biblical claim that Jesus resurrected is error free?

I think I'd get the central facts right, though of course I might misremember minor details like the color of robes or the precise time of day. But the central event I'd say it'd be fairly unlikely to get wrong, especially osmething so out of left field as watching someone die a horrible death on Friday and then eating fish with them on Monday.

You think you would.

THINK.

Yeah, that's nowhere near good enough. Human memory is incredibly unreliable. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

Here's some sources that will hopefully convince you that memory is not a reliable record of what happened.

Memories Are Unreliable: Why We May Be So Sure Yet So Wrong At the Same Time - Partably

Memories are unreliable at best. The process of creating and retrieving memories can be glitchy. But there are ways to improve our memories.

partably.com

The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom - PMC

Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Is your memory unreliable? | NeuroNation

Our memories are unreliable because we like predictable stories: new Sussex research

Sussex Neuroscience researchers found that the human bias for complete storylines can lead us to misremember the conclusion of everyday events.

www.sussex.ac.uk

Human memory may be unreliable after just a few seconds, scientists find

Short-term memory illusions can happen when we ‘start filling in based on our expectations’, study suggests

www.theguardian.com

Human memories ‘are unreliable because of tendency for complete storylines’

People prefer stories with a clear beginning, middle and end, scientists said.

www.independent.co.uk

Unreliable Memory

We tend to think that memories are stored in our brains just as they are in computers. But neuroscientists have shown that each time we remember something, we are reconstructing the event, reassembling it from traces throughout the brain

www.psychologytoday.com

Is Memory Reliable? | The Classic Journal

theclassicjournal.uga.edu

So no, you are not likely to get the central facts right.

Did you or did you not insinuate that more skepticism is required because Jesus is claimed to be the Son of God?

The requirement for skepticism has nothing to do with whether I like it or not.

I would like very much to have $20 million deposited into my bank account, but if someone makes that claim to me I will be just as skeptical.

Because the idea that I would just suddenly get that much money at all for no reason is, say it with me, an extraordinary claim.

And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It doesn't matter if I like what is being claimed or dislike it.

Yeah, except the maxim is either a)circular by beginning with a conclusion of unlikelihood, or b)special pleading by raising personal incredulity to the level of argument. It's literally codifying your bias into a maxim and arguing that the bias is legitimate.

And both of those things can be easily overcome by showing EVIDENCE.

I don't care if something is a one in a trillion chance, if you show me valid evidence that it happened, then I will accept it.

What, exactly, is this supposed to mean?

Paul was out there persecuting Christians. So it's highly likely that he would have some understanding of what their beliefs were. Then he has a vision in which he sees Jesus speak to him. So he had a vision in which he was told things that he already knew, but he thought it was real.

Many people have had visions that they thought were real but have turned out to not be real.

No, I am arguing that the resurrection is the best explanation of the historical facts even if we limit those facts to those that are broadly agreed upon by Christian and non-Christian scholars, so long as we do not reject it as impossible before we begin our investigation and use ordinary epistemic heuristics like Oxxam's razor. Naturalistic explanations require numerous speculative adjustments to the evidence such as it is, and no single theory is sufficient for explaining the basic historical facts on its own.

The fact that you have to say that we start with a certain position which is unjustified (namely, that people can return to life after they die) shows just how weak your position is.

 

[Kylie]

Not even one tiny bit if you read the Hebrew. Adam in in Chapter one is mankind, Adam in Chapter two was the man Adam.

Doesn't change the fact that the animals were made BEFORE in Genesis 1 and AFTER in Genesis 2.

We have generations or the genealogy from Adam to Jesus.

REALLY?

Please, share this source with me.

Many people have tried to show me contradictions and they have all failed. Every single one of them. You have failed here because you did not look to see that the spelling of the word Adam is different in the Hebrew Langugage.

There are plenty of contradictions.

 

[Diamond72]

REALLY?

Please, share this source with me.

The genealogy of Jesus in the New Testament is presented in two Gospels: Matthew and Luke. Each Gospel provides a different lineage:

• Matthew 1:1-17 traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph, his legal father, emphasizing Jesus' Jewish heritage and his rightful place as a descendant of King David and Abraham. This genealogy is often referred to as the "royal lineage." It starts with Abraham and goes through David, Solomon, and the kings of Judah, finally arriving at Joseph.
• Luke 3:23-38 traces Jesus' lineage through Mary, emphasizing Jesus' connection to all humanity. This genealogy, often called the "human lineage," starts with Jesus and goes backward through David and Abraham, continuing all the way to Adam, highlighting Jesus as the Son of God.

Bishop Ussher wrote a book about this around 500 years ago. We also read about this in
Genesis 3:15. This verse is part of the narrative where God speaks to the serpent after the fall of Adam and Eve. The verse reads:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel."

Eve is the matriarch of Mary.

 

[Fervent]

Here's a source that claims to present scientific truths from the Koran to show that Islam is the one true religion: https://www.kalamullah.com/Books/Scientific Truths in The Quran.pdf

Here's a source that does the same for the Vedas: The Advanced Scientific Knowledge in Ancient Indian Scriptures: A Look at Modern Discoveries

And here's a source that claims that Bahai is true because it fulfilled prophecies. https://medium.com/@avrelseale/why-bahai-it-comes-down-to-five-questions-1ef03fcc155b

So yeah, pretty much any religion that is held by people today has some argument which states, "X is true, and that proves that religion Y is true!"

None of those seem to be what you originally claimed, but such discussion is rather pointless to both the thread topic and our little off-topic discussion.

But if it isn't meant to be taken literally, how can you claim that some historical account mentioned by it is real?

Its not a single, unified document with only one kind of information. And I never claimed it is completely removed from history. Just that there's more nuance to it than either inerrent scientific truth or completely bogus information.

Something that proves that he got this in the year you claimed and not at some later date. 1 Corinthians is the earliest record of the creed, so how do you know it was around before then?

It's the form of what is presented that makes it identifiable as a creedal statement. It is something Paul received, not something he originated.

Your entire point of view is based on their being a fundamental difference in the origin of these faiths, and yet you can't provide any justification for this claim.

The dating of the claim isn't that important, more the centrality of resurrection belief to Christianity in its earliest documented form. The only things that matter for my argument are that Jesus was crucified, and that the central tenet of the faith that took His title was belief in the resurrection. Both of which are uncontroversial

Perhaps if you took the time to try to understand my argument, you'd actually provide a basis for your claims instead of just making stuff up (like your idea that Muhammad was just hallucinating or something when he came up with Islam).

Your arguments completely miss the point of mine. I understand them, but they fail to address the central claim in my argument and instead address irrelevant secondary details or something you've made up altogether.

Then how do you determine that the Biblical claim that Jesus resurrected is error free?

It's the centrality of the belief to the original community that matters. There may be errors and legends and such, but such things had to arise around a central historical core. That there is no naturalistic account and none of the speculative naturalistic explanations can account for it on their own without multiple ad hoc adjustments leads me to conclude that the most likely explanation is that some authentic resurrection event happened. There's a difference between allowing for erroroneous information to have crept in and the entire thing being fabricated.

You think you would.

THINK.

Yeah, that's nowhere near good enough. Human memory is incredibly unreliable. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

Here's some sources that will hopefully convince you that memory is not a reliable record of what happened.

Memories Are Unreliable: Why We May Be So Sure Yet So Wrong At the Same Time - Partably

Memories are unreliable at best. The process of creating and retrieving memories can be glitchy. But there are ways to improve our memories.

partably.com

The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom - PMC

Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Is your memory unreliable? | NeuroNation

Our memories are unreliable because we like predictable stories: new Sussex research

Sussex Neuroscience researchers found that the human bias for complete storylines can lead us to misremember the conclusion of everyday events.

www.sussex.ac.uk

Human memory may be unreliable after just a few seconds, scientists find

Short-term memory illusions can happen when we ‘start filling in based on our expectations’, study suggests

www.theguardian.com

Human memories ‘are unreliable because of tendency for complete storylines’

People prefer stories with a clear beginning, middle and end, scientists said.

www.independent.co.uk

Unreliable Memory

We tend to think that memories are stored in our brains just as they are in computers. But neuroscientists have shown that each time we remember something, we are reconstructing the event, reassembling it from traces throughout the brain

www.psychologytoday.com

Is Memory Reliable? | The Classic Journal

theclassicjournal.uga.edu

So no, you are not likely to get the central facts right.

There's a huge difference between saying "memory is unreliable" and that we can't have any confidence in memory to get central claims right. If we went to that extreme, we'd destroy our ability to investigate history at all.

The requirement for skepticism has nothing to do with whether I like it or not.

There is no requirement for skepticism, since your "skepticism" is restricted to things you initially find implausible and extends so far that you're willing to completely disregard memory in the pursuit of historical reconstruction you are doing nothing but begging the question, meaning you've assumed your conclusion and through circular reasoning about the types of evidence you'll accept continue on in that assumed conclusion.

I would like very much to have $20 million deposited into my bank account, but if someone makes that claim to me I will be just as skeptical.

Because the idea that I would just suddenly get that much money at all for no reason is, say it with me, an extraordinary claim.

And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

All you're doing is codifying your bias and engagins in circular reasoning. There are no "extraordinary claims" or "extraordinary evidence" there are claims and there are evidence. Some claims we can reliably be skeptical about because of background information, such as your lottery example because we know beforehand the odds of winning the lottery are slim. But the odds on the existence of God in the person of Jesus isn't exactly something we can unbiasedly set prior odds on. So all you are doing with your maxim is beginning with your conclusion.

It doesn't matter if I like what is being claimed or dislike it.

In this case it absolutely does, because you're setting prior odds based on what you don't like.

And both of those things can be easily overcome by showing EVIDENCE.

Which you define in such a narrow way that any historical reconstruction is impossible.

I don't care if something is a one in a trillion chance, if you show me valid evidence that it happened, then I will accept it.

You've presented evidence to the contrary.

Paul was out there persecuting Christians. So it's highly likely that he would have some understanding of what their beliefs were. Then he has a vision in which he sees Jesus speak to him. So he had a vision in which he was told things that he already knew, but he thought it was real.

And this is salient to my argument because...?

Many people have had visions that they thought were real but have turned out to not be real.

The issue isn't Paul's vision, it's James and Peter confirming his vision. Because as you said, belief in the resurrection pre-dates Paul. Paul's conversion is just one piece of evidence in the overall pie, and your explanation is just one more ad hoc explanation.

The fact that you have to say that we start with a certain position which is unjustified (namely, that people can return to life after they die) shows just how weak your position is.

This is precisely where the epistemics come into play, because you assume that people can't come back from the dead. But what is that based on? Induction, which can't justify absolutes. So all I need is the possibility for the dead to return, not that it be an actual fact. So you are the one exceeding the limits of the available evidence, because if the resurrection weren't a unique event it wouldn't be worth talking about. Your position demands we stretch our inductive case against the resurrection to an absolute, but that move isn't justified by the nature of the reasoning involved. All I need for my argument is the possibility, not the actual fact. The actual fact comes from the available evidence, granted that it is a circumstantial case. But circumstantial cases tend to dominate historical discussions.