More scientific probability and the Genesis account

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not saying that at all, i am saying that it is the geographical sequence of events,
the Bible, just by some strange coincidence happens to follow this geographical
sequence of events in the book of Genesis, a subtle but never the less important point.

Provide the quote from the Bible where it states that the earth is 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i am stating that there is a difference between a source of light and an observers
perception of that light. You have confused the two, you want a scientific source for
that?

You quite specifically stated; "On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. "

But seeing as you obviously disagree with what you said earlier, you can try to explain what you are saying now, because I don't understand. Are you saying that first there was light, but the sun was created later ? Or that the sun was always the source of light, but there was no one on Earth capable of observing or understanding what the sun was, so only the light was important ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh, you seem to be having trouble with the term, 'light became discernible', its a
common mistake of the uninitiated,

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The
Hebrew word there used for “light” is ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on
the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to maohr, w layers still enveloping the earth.
Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.

Umm...

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning —the fourth day.

Could you show me the discernable bit in this passage? It sounds to me like a claim of creation of the sun, moon and starts on day 4.

Another point I just thought of - the 'vault' of the sky is the space between the two bodies of water. If the sun is IN the vault, does that mean the water 'above' the vault encompassed both sun and earth? Oh wait, and the stars are in there, too...that's a damn huge body of water 'above' everything.

And another point - regardless of the order of the hebrew words, there were no human observers on day 4 to 'notice' the light breaking through the clouds. Presumably, all the events of days 1-5, and part of 6, were known only to God at first and then passed on to man. So why did God get the order wrong? Day 1 should be the creation of light's source - stars - and Day 4 should be the observability of these sources from planet earth.

Originally posted by Barts
You quite specifically stated; "On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. "

But seeing as you obviously disagree with what you said earlier, you can try to explain what you are saying now, be ...[text shortened]... rth capable of observing or understanding what the sun was, so only the light was important ?

sure,

First “Day”

“‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light
Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there
came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3, 5.

Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but
their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now,
light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth
began to have alternating days and nights.

Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of
time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis
rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light
came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the
sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that
reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in
Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Umm...[quote]14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser l ce - stars - and Day 4 should be the observability of these sources from planet earth.

see above.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Provide the quote from the Bible where it states that the earth is 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water'.

the list I provided is not a quotation from the Bible, its a geographic sequence of events.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sure,

First “Day”

“‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light
Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there
came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3, 5.

Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but
their light did not rea ...[text shortened]... was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in
Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.

That really didn't help. 😛

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis
creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The
account lists 10 major stages in this order:

(1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light;
(4) an expanse or atmosphere; ...[text shortened]... rder without getting the
facts from somewhere is not realistic.

source : Jehovahs witnesses

here is a huge list of scientific and historical predictions from the koran.

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

blimey does this mean you will be accepting islam as your new faith?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
here is a huge list of scientific and historical predictions from the koran.

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

blimey does this mean you will be accepting islam as your new faith?

and all you have to do is ignore that it says the sun sets in a puddle of mud at the end of every day.

it's easy to ignore all the things these mythologies get wrong in the face of the few they get somewhat right, with a stretch of the imagination.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
here is a huge list of scientific and historical predictions from the koran.

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

blimey does this mean you will be accepting islam as your new faith?

why should it, the Koran rips off the Bible big time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why should it, the Koran rips off the Bible big time.

So its a plagiarism of yet another plagiarism. Do two plagiarisms make a right?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why should it, the Koran rips off the Bible big time.

are you saying all the predictions were taken from the bible or just some of them?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So its a plagiarism of yet another plagiarism. Do two plagiarisms make a right?

there is no real similarity between the genesis account and any other, infact, experts at
the British museum have stated in the case of the Babylonian account there there is no
textual dependency, anyone can read the Sumerian text for themselves and see that
your assertions are unfounded and pure bumf! Gods plotting killing each other, please
turn up the tone!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are you saying all the predictions were taken from the bible or just some of them?

hard to say what textual dependency, if any, exists between the Koran and Gods word
the Bible, clearly Muhammed had some Christian influence as the virgin birth is
mentioned in the Koran. citing another book is a logical fallacy, a fallacy of diversion,
we are not discussing the Koran, we are discussing the Biblical book of Genesis.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the list I provided is not a quotation from the Bible, its a geographic sequence of events.

This is what the article states -

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order:

Where does the Genesis account mention anything about the earth being 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water'? This is what is claimed on your organisations list.