More scientific probability and the Genesis account

Originally posted by Proper Knob
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. [b]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.[/b]

these are 10 steps according to the accepted geological sequence, not Biblical
quotations.

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?

This was plagiarrized from the Holy Bible and they are attempting to reconcile the 24-hour days with the long periods of time required by evolutionary science. Shameful.

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_33.html

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.

So again you are stating "This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast". How is this different from "You're claiming a permanent cloud cover that obscured the sun", which you earlier said was a misrepresentation of your position.

Originally posted by Barts
So again you are stating "This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast". How is this different from "You're claiming a permanent cloud cover that obscured the sun", which you earlier said was a misrepresentation of your position.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then 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. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 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. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

(Genesis 1:14-19 NKJV)

The sun (the greater light) and the moon (the lesser light) and the stars were not made until the 4th day. The light, itself was made on the 1st day. The sun, moon, and stars are light sources, like a light bulb. This does not mean light did not exist before the light bulb does it?

P.S. What is light?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

Did ancient man know this or did God tell them?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then [b]God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light ...[text shortened]... light?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

Did ancient man know this or did God tell them?

the moon is not a light source.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the moon is not a light source.

Except for the sun, the moon is the brightest object in the sky. It may not produce any light by itself, however it reflects light to the Earth and acts as a light source for us. We would have hardly any light at night, if it were not for the moon. So I think it is a light source in that sense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
these are 10 steps according to the accepted geological sequence, not Biblical
quotations.

So your OP is lying when it specifically states that the list is from the genesis account?

Originally posted by Barts
So again you are stating "This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast". How is this different from "You're claiming a permanent cloud cover that obscured the sun", which you earlier said was a misrepresentation of your position.

look you assertion was erroneous, you stated and i quote,

Some of the chronology is simply wrong. Plants where growing before the sun and
moon could be seen from Earth ?

this is your assertion and its quite erroneous why? because it has been pointed out to
you, that the light from the sun was diffused, even if there is cloud cover, you can still
see light, even though the sun may not be visible, why you cannot grasp this simple
and self evident concept i do not know, for example, today in Glasgow, its overcast, I
cannot see the sun, yet it must be there, for its daylight, is that so hard to grasp?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
these are 10 steps according to the accepted geological sequence, not Biblical
quotations.

The article makes no mention of a 'geological sequence' at all, it mentions only the 'Genesis creation account', here it is again for you -

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 creation account make any claim about the earth being 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water'?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look you assertion was erroneous, you stated and i quote,

Some of the chronology is simply wrong. [b]Plants where growing before the sun and
moon could be seen from Earth ?

this is your assertion and its quite erroneous why? because it has been pointed out to
you, that the light from the sun was diffused, even if there is cloud cover, ...[text shortened]... rcast, I
cannot see the sun, yet it must be there, for its daylight, is that so hard to grasp?[/b]

Yes, I asserted that it's ludicrous to state that the first plants existed before the sun could be seen from Earth. You keep droning on about the difference between seeing light from a source and actually being able to observe that source, but if you read my line again, you'll see that I also made that distinction.

Let's quote it again;
Plants where growing before the sun and moon could be seen from Earth ?

To reiterate;
Is your position the following,
Day 1; Sun is created
Day 3; Land plants come into existence
Day 4; For the first time, the sun is no longer obscured by clouds or something similar ?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Except for the sun, the moon is the brightest object in the sky. It may not produce any light by itself, however it reflects light to the Earth and acts as a light source for us. We would have hardly any light at night, if it were not for the moon. So I think it is a light source in that sense.

yes, but the primitive hebrews didn't know that. that's why they had their tribal deity create the moon as a light source.

Originally posted by Barts
Yes, I asserted that it's ludicrous to state that the first plants existed before the sun could be seen from Earth. You keep droning on about the difference between seeing light from a source and actually being able to observe that source, but if you read my line again, you'll see that I also made that distinction.

Let's quote it again;
Plants where gro ...[text shortened]... ce
Day 4; For the first time, the sun is no longer obscured by clouds or something similar ?

No need for argument, it's all a load of crap anyway. The creation myth christians think is theirs is older than Judaism, plagiarized from very ancient egyptian mythology. I know from where I speak, I saw the cartouche drawings depicting it at the Cairo museum. I lived in Israel for 4 years, family included. Saw the original dead sea scrolls in Jerusalem where we lived, saw a lot actually.


One guy here says it's even older than Egypt, Sumarian myth also.

Originally posted by Barts
Yes, I asserted that it's ludicrous to state that the first plants existed before the sun could be seen from Earth. You keep droning on about the difference between seeing light from a source and actually being able to observe that source, but if you read my line again, you'll see that I also made that distinction.

Let's quote it again;
Plants where gro ...[text shortened]... ce
Day 4; For the first time, the sun is no longer obscured by clouds or something similar ?

i have explained it three times now, with reference and example, i will not do so again.
The matter should be perfectly clear to any rational and reasonable individual.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The article makes no mention of a 'geological sequence' at all, it mentions only the 'Genesis creation account', here it is again for you -

[quote]The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the [b]Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in ...[text shortened]... eation account make any claim about the earth being 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water'?[/b]

it doesn't offer any specifics, the list offers a list of the accepted geological sequence of
events , the processes as espoused by the genesis account without specifics, which is
after all not a scientific textbook as you may or may not have noticed.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No need for argument, it's all a load of crap anyway. The creation myth christians think is theirs is older than Judaism, plagiarized from very ancient egyptian mythology. I know from where I speak, I saw the cartouche drawings depicting it at the Cairo museum. I lived in Israel for 4 years, family included. Saw the original dead sea scrolls in Jerusalem wh ...[text shortened]... ed, saw a lot actually.


One guy here says it's even older than Egypt, Sumarian myth also.

following the migration of the hebrews, they likely picked up on monotheism from the heretical akhenaten sect in egypt and zoroastrianism in mesopotamia regions and later on, picked up the sumerian/babylonian creation and global flood (and some other) stories from their exile in babylon.

along the way, they seem to have picked up other stories as well, there is a high possibility that job and jonah are stories of other cultures picked up and incorporated into the jewish canon.

the jewish religion was invented after their return from babylon, when something was needed to united the loose tribes of the region in solidarity with common "history" and purpose.