PDA

View Full Version : Tackett's IS GENESIS HISTORY? discussion



Interplanner
June 10th, 2017, 07:29 PM
IGH? is now on Netflix, very accessible.

It is heavy on geology at first, which I really appreciated because of the sheer fact that as we go back in time to what made the geologic structures we have today, there is the cataclysm of Genesis 6-8. We are not today looking at 'creation.'

2nd, the guest on the instant creation of light made a brilliant observation by pointing out the comparison of instant light from distant locations to instant maturity of the creatures. In other words, we are to think in terms of mature eco-systems from the beginning, not as developing to maturity. Or compare to the man and woman. Maturity from the moment of creation. Thus the galaxy's light is here at creation , and the S shape is merely hazy, not an indistinct glow from the compounded math of time and distance.

Please discuss any other feature that impressed you.

patrick jane
June 10th, 2017, 09:46 PM
I'll have to check that out

oatmeal
June 11th, 2017, 05:41 AM
IGH? is now on Netflix, very accessible.

It is heavy on geology at first, which I really appreciated because of the sheer fact that as we go back in time to what made the geologic structures we have today, there is the cataclysm of Genesis 6-8. We are not today looking at 'creation.'

2nd, the guest on the instant creation of light made a brilliant observation by pointing out the comparison of instant light from distant locations to instant maturity of the creatures. In other words, we are to think in terms of mature eco-systems from the beginning, not as developing to maturity. Or compare to the man and woman. Maturity from the moment of creation. Thus the galaxy's light is here at creation , and the S shape is merely hazy, not an indistinct glow from the compounded math of time and distance.

Please discuss any other feature that impressed you.

Yes, Genesis is history. It is accurate history.

God was there, the "scientists" and "historians" were not.

Jonahdog
June 11th, 2017, 06:13 AM
Yes, Genesis is history. It is accurate history.

God was there, the "scientists" and "historians" were not.

Well, that settles it.
And OJ didn't do it because no one else was there.

Interplanner
June 11th, 2017, 08:29 AM
Well, that settles it.
And OJ didn't do it because no one else was there.




When you see a boulder the size of a semi truck half submerged in slurry sediment which is now farmland, 'no one else was there' but the forces needed to pull that off are particular. They were there once. The source of the boulder was crust that is 10 miles away and now a mile high. Nothing shows it being bulldozed by ice as you would find at Taku where the side gutters have been scraped.

The present is not the key to the past.

Jonahdog
June 11th, 2017, 08:46 AM
When you see a boulder the size of a semi truck half submerged in slurry sediment which is now farmland, 'no one else was there' but the forces needed to pull that off are particular. They were there once. The source of the boulder was crust that is 10 miles away and now a mile high. Nothing shows it being bulldozed by ice as you would find at Taku where the side gutters have been scraped.

The present is not the key to the past.

What does that mean? Specifics. I live in New England there are glacial erratics all over the place. There are groves cut into bedrock. There are kettle ponds left over from glaciers. There is Cape Cod and Long Island. They all happened less than 4000 years ago?

Interplanner
June 12th, 2017, 06:53 AM
I think its good to step back and see what 'science' is really like. When I first visited Taku (I had 3 opportunities through family in Juneau), one of the first things you learn is that 'Hole in the Wall' appeared in the 20th century. 'Hole in the Wall' is the side glacier at the bottom of the 40 mile giant, a cross-section slice of which hole is the size of downtown Seattle's major built area. So you can imagine what size Taku is.

But then you find out that Taku has not be receding recently, instead, there was a collapse in 1800s when "Lake Taku" broke through the Taku River's ice dam and it more or less looked like it now does. Correct me if wrong, but I'm not aware of major industry affecting that climate in the 1800s (the eruption of Krakatoa being late 1800s after this).

I mention these things because of the sloppiness of modern 'science'. A huge part of modern science is manipulation of data, which shows regardless.

In terms of Taku, the standard explanation for why it has not receded in the 20th century, why Hole in the Wall actually appeared in the 20th century, is that Taku is 'insensitive.' Obama's reference to such things in Alaska was also an anachronistic quote of Hume, and last I checked, Obama was on good terms with 'science' (ie, manipulated data).

I wasn't as curious about this 'scientific' explanation (the trick word) until I also learned that the bottom layer of Grand Canyon is officially called 'the Great Unconformity.' It's the same trick. Having no reason for huge chaotic sedimentary layers immediately above the bedrock, 'science' has come up with trick words. The same is true of the 'fossil record' which on close inspection does not support the description of it. The same is true of Kinseyan sexual science; he adopted the serial rapist' position that 'the victims enjoyed what was happening.' Yet his 'findings' became 'science'--enough to be quoted in such US Supreme court cases as Roe v. Wade.

The question is two paradigms: vast time and static water vs. short time and enormous water motion. The question can be studied at Mt St Helens pretty conclusively. Things that happen in the first look one way; when they happen in the second they look another.

Jonahdog
June 12th, 2017, 06:28 PM
I think its good to step back and see what 'science' is really like. When I first visited Taku (I had 3 opportunities through family in Juneau), one of the first things you learn is that 'Hole in the Wall' appeared in the 20th century. 'Hole in the Wall' is the side glacier at the bottom of the 40 mile giant, a cross-section slice of which hole is the size of downtown Seattle's major built area. So you can imagine what size Taku is.

But then you find out that Taku has not be receding recently, instead, there was a collapse in 1800s when "Lake Taku" broke through the Taku River's ice dam and it more or less looked like it now does. Correct me if wrong, but I'm not aware of major industry affecting that climate in the 1800s (the eruption of Krakatoa being late 1800s after this).

I mention these things because of the sloppiness of modern 'science'. A huge part of modern science is manipulation of data, which shows regardless.

In terms of Taku, the standard explanation for why it has not receded in the 20th century, why Hole in the Wall actually appeared in the 20th century, is that Taku is 'insensitive.' Obama's reference to such things in Alaska was also an anachronistic quote of Hume, and last I checked, Obama was on good terms with 'science' (ie, manipulated data).

I wasn't as curious about this 'scientific' explanation (the trick word) until I also learned that the bottom layer of Grand Canyon is officially called 'the Great Unconformity.' It's the same trick. Having no reason for huge chaotic sedimentary layers immediately above the bedrock, 'science' has come up with trick words. The same is true of the 'fossil record' which on close inspection does not support the description of it. The same is true of Kinseyan sexual science; he adopted the serial rapist' position that 'the victims enjoyed what was happening.' Yet his 'findings' became 'science'--enough to be quoted in such US Supreme court cases as Roe v. Wade.

The question is two paradigms: vast time and static water vs. short time and enormous water motion. The question can be studied at Mt St Helens pretty conclusively. Things that happen in the first look one way; when they happen in the second they look another.
What is the point of the comments about the Taku glacier?

Can you provide a page citation to the Kenseyian sexual science in Roe? I just reread it quickly and did not see any such reference in the decision or foot notes, perhaps I missed it.

Your reference to "trick words" confuses me as well as your complaint about the fossil record.

You seem to have a problem with accepting the work of the people who spend their lives dealing with specific scientific questions. Why? Are you suggesting that all scientists manipulate data? If so, again, why? and provide some specific examples.

Interplanner
June 17th, 2017, 07:45 AM
6Days,
what do you think of the IGH? remark about the water ball before creation starts?

Interplanner
June 17th, 2017, 07:48 AM
What is the point of the comments about the Taku glacier?

Can you provide a page citation to the Kenseyian sexual science in Roe? I just reread it quickly and did not see any such reference in the decision or foot notes, perhaps I missed it.

Your reference to "trick words" confuses me as well as your complaint about the fossil record.

You seem to have a problem with accepting the work of the people who spend their lives dealing with specific scientific questions. Why? Are you suggesting that all scientists manipulate data? If so, again, why? and provide some specific examples.




I'll try to get to this today, lots going on. Over half of these questions are already better answered by IGH? than by me, but you seem to have an allergic reaction. Did you actually listen to the problems of conventional fossil thinking? How do large bones and fine bones of one and the same creature end up in layers thought to be 100M apart in formation? Not.

Interplanner
June 21st, 2017, 10:38 PM
"while very few geologists believe the Colorado meandered around and carved the Grand Canyon over millions of years anymore, that view is still found in most 9th grade texts." --Morris, ICR

Jonahdog
June 22nd, 2017, 03:47 AM
What does Morris claim carved the Grand Canyon, over what period of time and when? And a citation to the quote you posted, please, thanks.

6days
June 22nd, 2017, 01:26 PM
6Days,
what do you think of the IGH? remark about the water ball before creation starts?

Hey :)
Nope... I have not seen it. I don't get many chances to watch tv. Perhaps I can try this weekend.
But.....I am suspicious already when you seem to mention things existing before creation. " for in six days God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them" Ex. 20:11

Jonahdog
June 22nd, 2017, 07:28 PM
Hey :)
Nope... I have not seen it. I don't get many chances to watch tv. Perhaps I can try this weekend.
But.....I am suspicious already when you seem to mention things existing before creation. " for in six days God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them" Ex. 20:11
And there, Interplanner, is your problem. A belief in a literal Genesis trumps all.

Interplanner
June 24th, 2017, 08:06 AM
And there, Interplanner, is your problem. A belief in a literal Genesis trumps all.




Jonah,
just to keep communication clear:
1, 6Days and I have a discussion going back a year about the Hebrew. The person who wrote that was 6Days and yes there can be problems with literalism. For ex., Hebrew can have a term 'create' for 'out of nothing' and one for 'create' that is 'to form things' like with clay, which was already there. So at the same time, creative work may have taken just those few days, but other things were there. The appearance of earth and its neighbors is not necessarily at the same time as all other physical celestial bodies, ie, the text is locally true. Other passages in the Bible refer to other things going on 'in the heavens'. "Locally" can easily be made as wide as our galaxy, not just our solar system. This is the contribution of the biologist on ISG? showing the 'maturity' of life in each day; the Creator we are talking about would have no problem making life in mature form and in having lightwaves (not just light sources) present in an instant. By comparison, in the Gospel narratives, he has fish and bread ready for people to eat out of nothing; that is, baked bread (not grain), and cooked fish (not wiggly fresh ones). People forget this kind of thing when they read the text.

2, the expression 'formless and void' is only used of a destruction of something gone wrong elsewhere in the literature. We have almost no other information than that, and there is only one other use. If we don't use that information, we are not reading plainly, because a person has to take into account what a unique expression like this means in the other case. If 'literalism' means NOT to take it into account, then I'm not literal.
There is also the literary structure of Moses and I don't think 6Days accepts it. It says that many segments are structured as follows:
1, title
2, pre-existing condition
3, new action
4, summary

#1 is not the new action. That is why there is no verb in the Hebrew in 1:1. it's a section title.

3, therefore 6Days problems are not mine as we don't see this the same.

Jonahdog
June 24th, 2017, 08:55 AM
OK, just to keep communication clear, there is no way to read Genesis that suggests any real correlation with the real world.
Yes your Creator could make things appear as if they were millions or billions of years old, being all powerful and all that, but it raises questions of honesty. Your deity creates humans with marvelous brains that drive the species to investigate and understand the natural world and the universe, but his Word does not fit with what we find. Why?

oatmeal
June 24th, 2017, 09:05 AM
Well, that settles it.
And OJ didn't do it because no one else was there.

When did God create the heavens and the earth?

In the beginning.

When was that?

I don't know for scripture does not tell us.

Scientists keep changing when that happened.

now it is about 15 billion years ago.

When will they make up their mind and quit with all their guessing?

Maybe God did create the heaven and the earth 15 billion years ago.

That does not contradict scripture.

Jonahdog
June 24th, 2017, 10:16 AM
When did God create the heavens and the earth?

In the beginning.

When was that?

I don't know for scripture does not tell us.

Scientists keep changing when that happened.

now it is about 15 billion years ago.

When will they make up their mind and quit with all their guessing?

Maybe God did create the heaven and the earth 15 billion years ago.

That does not contradict scripture.

I certainly contradicts Scripture according to many here who must believe in a literal Genesis.

Current best estimate is 13.8 billion years. It is not a guess. It is based on the best evidence as understood today. Will the number change in the future? Maybe as additional evidence is looked at, additional measuring methods are developed. In any event, the universe has been around for a lot longer than the 6000 +/- years demanded by the Biblical literalists on TOL

6days
June 24th, 2017, 09:27 PM
Hebrew can have a term 'create' for 'out of nothing' and one for 'create' that is 'to form things' like with clay, which was already there.
'Bara' and 'asah' mean the same thing and are used interchangeably....similar to English.


So at the same time, creative work may have taken just those few days, but other things were there.
Ex. 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,


The appearance of earth and its neighbors is not necessarily at the same time as all other physical celestial bodies
Ex. 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,


Other passages in the Bible refer to other things going on 'in the heavens'.Ex. 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,


"Locally" can easily be made as wide as our galaxy, not just our solar system.
God does not say "locally"... That is your addition to scripture. God's Word says "Ex. 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"


the expression 'formless and void' is only used of a destruction of something gone wrong...
Genesis 1:2 "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
God created over the course of 6 days, He formed and filled the earth... so yes, it was formless and empty on day 1.
Interplanner... your additions to scripture border on heretical. This was NOT a re-creation. "Ex. 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"

6days
June 24th, 2017, 09:35 PM
Maybe God did create the heaven and the earth 15 billion years ago.

That does not contradict scripture.
Of course that false belief system contradicts scripture.
Jesus referred to humanity from "the beginning of creation". Jesus referred to humanity existing from a time at the foundation of the world... not billions of years later. Genesis is clear... God created in 6 days that had evening and morning. The Hebrew context does not allow the addition of time into the account. The purpose of the cross prevents heretical ideas that physical death was something God called "very good" .

6days
June 24th, 2017, 09:48 PM
Yes your Creator could make things appear as if they were millions or billions of years old, being all powerful and all that, but it raises questions of honesty.
Yes.... if God created something that looked millions of years old to deceive us, it would be dishonest. But, God tells us of a recent creation... It does not look old.
Likewise... God created eve, and she might have looked 20 years old, but God told Adam 'I made her 5 minutes ago'. So..... Adam could believe God based on evidence... or He could reject God saying 'I don't believe you... she looks older than 5 minutes."
IOW... It's not a matter of God's honesty.... It's a matter of our hearts - accepting or rejecting Him.