On 9 Feb, 07:57, Errol <[email protected]> wrote: > I suspected you might clutch at that particular straw, but > unfortunately the order is all wrong in the Genesis account. >
What? You suspected that I might point out that radioactive decay is relative to the Hubble Constant and that, therefore, radioactive decay is not a reliable indicator of the actual age of anything? OK. One wonders why you asked it, then. > Land for example was separated from sea on the thrid day, but stars > only created on the fourth day. We know that all elements higher than > iron have been forged within a star, so how did they end up in the > land before the stars were "created"? maybe they were placed there > afterwards by god to thwart the atheists as the dinosaur bones were > placed in the Earth to confuse evolutionists? > Yup, I couldn't agree with you more. The order IS wrong in Genesis. But THAT'S a different question than yesterday's "6 Days of Creation" question. Physics DOES allow for 6 days for Creation up to Adam (whenever that was). But you are absolutely right that the order of events is wrong in Genesis. The Qur'an doesn't mention what happened on what day, though; rather, it only states that up to Adam it took God 6 days. And THAT is not disproven by science; in fact, it's a proposition that is made more likely once we discovered that the Hubble Constant wasn't a constant. > How about birds on the 5th day and reptiles on the 6th? Birds are > actually descended from reptiles. > Now, that you've pointed out that the ordering is wrong, what does THAT tell you? It tells me that, perhaps, over time, the original texts were lost and someone had to fill in a few gaps. Or, someone redacted some source documents into what we now call the Torah. The latter is the case and the man was the prophet Ezra. He did the best he could, but the some of the source texts were already a bit off. (In my opinion, I believe the original scrolls that were kept in the Ark of the Covenant were destroyed when the Philistines stole and opened the Ark) The first bit of Genesis is taken from the 'Priestly' scroll (the other scrolls being the Yahwist [the oldest], the Elohist [the next eldest] and the Deuteronomist's scroll) and is far from the oldest of the source documents. If you change the ordering around, though, you can make it synch up with reality. Also, if you now know that the original Torah was corrupted, that might lead you to believe the statement to that effect in the Qur'an. In the Qur'an it mentions the 6 days of Creation but it doesn't go into what happened on which day. So, what you're left with is the Qur'an as the most legitimate scriptural text from the God of Abraham. Now, if you would, could you try to impugn that document? I fully agree with you (based on Genesis 1 alone!!) that we know that the Torah is corrupt. But the Qur'an states that and goes on to state that IT was given as a correct version of those previous 'revelations', that is those given to Adam (potentially, the book of Raziel), Abraham (probably the Sefer Yetzirah), Moses (The Torah), David (Only those Psalms actually written BY David), some other prophets (Isaiah for sure) and Jesus (but only what God told him, as he left no writings, so the entire New Testament is suspect). It's almost common knowledge that the New Testament is corrupt in many ways, and we agree that the Old Testament is (certainly the Torah). But, can you impugn the Qur'an? As far as I'm concerned, THAT is the only text available that is worth impugning, if you have a mind to do so. I reckon, though, that you'll have a hard time doing it. And I shall do my best to back it up. I'm glad, though, that we've reached the core of the argument. Best of luck!! > On Feb 8, 6:09 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 8 Feb, 14:40, Errol <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 3:14 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Would you like to name a few specifics, here? That is, of things that > > > > have been disproven. I'm just curious as to which things. And, thank > > > > God, there aren't door-to-door atheists...although that would make a > > > > classic comedy sketch!! > > > > How about; the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days? > > > Not impossible at all given modern science. The age of the universe > > all depends on the rate of the expansion of space-time. And we KNOW > > that the rate of expansion (governed by the value of the Hubble > > Constant) has varied in the past. In fact, it's a functional part OF > > the Standard Model, i.e., that period of VAST expansion just after the > > Big Bang called 'Inflation'. So, we KNOW, beyond doubt, that the rate > > of expansion has varied and that the Hubble Constant is not a > > constant, rather, it's a variable. What we DON'T know is how fast the > > rate slowed down from the period of inflation to the first time the > > 'constant' was measured. There's every possibility that the universe > > COULD have been on 'fast forward' up to the point of mankind. Since > > all radioactive decay is RELATIVE TO the value of the Hubble Constant, > > we cannot rely on radioactive decay as any indication of the actual > > age of the universe; rather, it's only an indication of the RELATIVE > > age. And there absolutely NO WAY of discovering the rate of slowing > > OF the Hubble Constant as all of the indicators are relative TO it. > > It could well be that it slowed in 6 stages that, given the value of > > the Hubble Constant today, amounts to 6 days of current time. > > > Nice try, but I've already given that one some thought and modern > > science CANNOT rule out a 6-day Creation based on what we know to > > date. Next?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
