OK I didn't suspect that you would link radioactive decay to the Hubble Constant. That is quite inventive, but I did suspect there would be some kind of reason for changing the day to a much longer period, by (for example) challenging the translation of day
As far as the quran is concerned, the muslims can have it for all I care. To me the old testament is quite barrbaric anyway. Too much smiting for my taste. I don't trust the testemony of any so-called prophet that allegedly had the details of such a brutal religion handed to him by God nor would I feel that this was a god that deserved adoration. The new testimony reveals the face of a much more tolerant god but is plagued with historical guesswork. On Feb 9, 6:57 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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.
