The authors of this nonsense is unknow, published unknown, but it soulds like Henry Morris

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

-------------------------------------------------------------------- The authors of this nonsense is unknow, published unknown, but it soulds like Henry Morris. It shows a remarkable lack of even the basic understanding of evolution, logic, and sanity. Typical. -- drice -------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Educational Computing Network From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss) Message-ID: <22echi$po8@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Newsgroups: alt.atheism And again we have this blathering. [SEE ARTICLE AFTER THIS NOTE] I hope you shared this posting with us to show how silly people can be. If so, I wish you would have put a note at the top of the article saying so. I have sat in silently on many conversations between "True Believers" who try to hinge on a small collection of misunderstandings of science and how we understand things work and use *that* to help them validate their religion with their intellect. Sure you can say that Moses had the sequence of the appearance of life on this planet correct if you take liberties with the reading of the text. The text contains two cronologies of "The Creation." One has beasts coming first, the other has man created first, then beasts created to keep him company. These contradicting are separated by less than a page of text. As for Moses knowing that light existed before our sun, the author forgot that Moses thought that this planet was covered with liquid water before the first light. Now, if there is more to the universe than we can see, why should we assume that that is a god, let alone the god of Moses, et al? With these three weaknesses, I would say that the author of the article fits neatly into the group of people I described as trying to justify their faith with a small collection of misunderstandings of science. -Frank -- Frank Doss The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions, attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affiliated organizations. ======================================================================== The book of Genesis and Science. Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) Message-ID: Hello all. I saw this article today (elsewhere) and I'd like to read coments from some of you...... -------------------beginning of article---------------------- As we concluded our message the last time we were together we were talking about that remarkable statement of the writer of Hebrews under the inspiration of the Spirit of god, when he declares in Hebrews 11:3, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at god's command, so that what is seen was not made of what was visible." We mentioned that hard old confident materialism has suffered a severe blow. Physicists today in their pursuit of the secret of matter have broken through into what one might call a submaterial world, where physical categories fail and physical concepts are out of place, and where at last it is absolutely obvious that things that are seen were not made of things which do appear. We quoted Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, the English astronomer who said: "The universe is seen to be much more like a great thought, than like a machine." Twentieth century science now proclaims the atom that fills the physical universe is solely energy in motion. Its mass is simply a manifestation of this energy. And matter, according to science, is an unexplained phenomena directed by some external mysterious power. [...] We closed our message by asking: "What do we call that mysterious directing power if we do not call it God?" [We call it "the four forces," i.e. strong and weak nucular, electromagnetic, and gravity. I thought this was covered in highschool?!] We've been speaking about the sublime way in which the Bible accounts for the creation of the universe. The god who created this universe must have revealed this knowledge to Moses. The word of god says that "Moses was learned in all parts of the wisdom of the Egyptians [occult magic]", Acts 7:22. As the adopted son of the Pharaoh's daughter, he was given the finest education of his day. We happen to know what he was taught about creation because we now know what the Egyptians believed. They believed that originally only the ocean existed and that on this ocean an egg or a flower appeared from which was born the sun-god. The sun-god had four children, two of whom, Shiu and Tephnut, together making up the atmosphere, planted their feet on the first Gebb, which is earth, and raised their sister Knuth, the sky, to the heavens. Gebb and Knuth, the earth and the sky, had four children: Osiris, Isis, Nephis and Seth. Osiris married Isis and with her governed the earth. But later he was murdered by his jealous brother Seth, who in his rage cut his victims body into pieces, burying them in different parts of Egypt. Isis collected the scattered fragments and, aided by the jackel god Anabis, resucitated the body of Osiris. Osiris, however, was unable to return to earth and remained in the underworld as the god of the dead and the judge of souls. Isis bore a son, Horis, who took revenge of Seth and won back from the Usurper, his father's throne. This fable was the most popular of all Egyptian's beliefs. In the middle kingdom, the Osiris myth flourished as the leading cult. This was the science of the day, when Moses wrote the sublime account of creation, found in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis, with not one scientific error or blunder or absurdity. Can the sacred books of other religions endure the test? Certainly they can not, from the nonsense we have already read. We can apply this test for example to the Koran, the Chasta, the Zendevasta, or the teachings of the wisest and the best of uninspired men. Though Moses was trained in the schools of Egypt and was taught the nonsense we've just read, the Holy Spirit saw to it that none of this mythology, the popular belief of the Egyptians, is found in the biblical account of creation. If we found such fables in the Bible we would have good reason for rejecting the Scriptures. Compare Moses with Zoroaster, Confucius, Senicus, Socrates or Plato. For example, Plato wrote, "using the language of probability we may say that the world became a living soul and truly rational through the providence of god." Plato believed there were four elements: earth, air, fire and water, and said, "out of such elements, which are in number 4, the body of the world was created." Fascinatingly, Plato conceived of the world as a vast and visible animal. And the people of his day believed that earthquakes resulted of the creature shaking itself. Plato was one of the worlds greatest philosophers, but there is no comparison between his mythological animism and the clear cut statements of the Word of god. His ideas about creation as far as scientists are concerned today would be absolutely absurd. The same is true with Pythagoras and Anaxagoras, or Aristotle. Renan, the French Infidel, made the statement that Socrates gave philosophy the mankind and Aristotle gave it science. Will Durant, the historian, tells us: "before Aristotle, science was an embryo, with him it was born." Although Aristotle accumulated a great amount of accurate knowledge and was fond of facts, he made fantastic errors. he believed the earth was the center of the solar system, knew nothing of muscles, or even their existence. Thought that the function of the brain was to cool the blood, and that women had fewer teeth that men. Writes Durant, "for lack of a telescope, Aristotle's astronomy is a tissue of childish romance, and for lack of a microscope, his biology wonders aimlessly and endlessly astray." We know of course that Moses didn't have a telescope, nor did he have a microscope, but his statements are precise and accurate. When the ancient religions touched the Bible's theme of creation, their absurdity and ridiculousness becomes actually humorous. Put the first chapter of Genesis beside the Hindu idea of the universe, and this is what we find. "Millions upon millions of cycles ago this world came to be. It was a flat triangular plane with high hills and mountains and great waters. It existed in several stories and the whole mass is held up on the heads of elephants, with their tails turned out and their feet resting on the shell of an immense tortoise, and the tortoise on the coil of a great snake, and when these elephants shake themselves, that makes the earth shake." The ancient Greeks believed that a giant Atlas stood at the borders of the earth and upheld the wide heavens with tireless head and arms. We still call the book of maps an atlas on this account. Suppose the Bible had made such mistakes as Plato, who held that the earth was a living animal, or that both the heavens and the earth originated out of a kind of pulp, generated from the slime of the Nile river, or that the earth was supported on the back of elephants, which stood on the shell of a great turtle, which swam around in the cosmic sea. It's interesting that even Johannes Kepler, 1571-1630, the German astronomer, affirmed the earth was a living animal. Suppose the Bible had made such mistakes as that of the old sages who taught that the milky way was a path over which the sun used to journey, showing the marks of its footsteps. Or a band of solid substance showing the two parts of the globe. Suppose the Bible had propagated the old notion that brutes are human beings in changed shapes and that there are fish in the sea with horses heads and that the fable phenix was a real bird, that the thunderbolts came from the three stars, especially Jupiter. Suppose any of these was found in the Word of god. Who guards this most ancient volume from the superstitions that corrupted astronomy into astrology, chemistry into alchemy? Who taught, for example, the writer of 104th Psalm, who composed that grand poem of 35 verses on the wonders of the created world, and yet introduced not one of the scientific errors current in those days. Even Van Barren Wilhelm Humbolt, 1767-1835, was compelled to confess that "in a lyrical poem of such limited compass, we find the whole universe, the heavens and the earth sketched with a few bold touches." If we found any of these absurdities in Genesis, we would know the Bible was not a god-inspired book. If in Moses' day the Egyptians led the world in science but their best scholars said this earth was hatched from a winged egg, how amazing that the teachings in Genesis agree exactly with the findings of the best scientists of, say, the last 50 years. The late Sir William Gossen, the great Canadian geologist and scholar said: "The order of creation as stated in Genesis is faultless in the light of modern science, and many of the details present the most remarkable agreement with the results of science born only in our day." Peter W. Stoner, a professor of mathematics, lists and examines 13 steps of creation as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis and comes to the conclusion that these events are not only accurately recorded, but are in an order acceptable to modern science. he estimates, and speaking as a mathematician, that Moses chances of getting both the items and the order correct are 1 in 31 followed by 21 zeroes. As we have seen, the Bible is the only ancient book that is accurate in all scientific details. Other ancient holy books from the east include legends and errors too absurd and ridiculous for consideration. Even a comparatively modern book, like the Koran, abounds in historical and chronological blunders. For example, the Bible says there was light before the sun. All men once held with Sir Isaac Newton the idea that light was an emination from the sun and other luminous bodies. But in recent years men believed that they have proven that light existed before the sun. There are many theories concerning light, but all scientists are apparently agreed that light existed before the sun was made its governor. Since this was discovered, many pseudo-scientists ridiculed what they called the old Bible idea that light comes from the sun. George W. D. Half relates that while he was in college a professor was explaining his favorite theory of light and ended his discourse by saying: "Well, this completely upsets the old Bible idea that light comes from the sun, in fact, it just proves the Bible, the book, to be out of date." So the young student asked his professor: "where does the Bible say that light comes from the sun?". "I don't know", he replied, "but everyone knows it's there." At the student's insistence, a Bible was brought to the professor, and the professor read from the first chapter of Genesis: "In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and god said: "Let there be light", and there was light." And then, he read on to verses 17 and 18, where God caused the sun, moon and stars to appear and control the light to act as chronometers. Seeing that Moses was scientifically correct, the distinguished doctor said: "Well, that makes a donkey out of me!" The young student replied: "I agreed with him heartily, but I doubted the expediency of saying so at the time". How did Moses know this important scientific fact thousands of years before others discovered it? Like Aristotle, Moses never had a telescope or a microscope, and yet he wrote centuries before Aristotle's time that god ordained the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. In other words, he declared the sun to be greater than the moon. Some ancient observers thought the moon to be greater than the sun because at times it appears bigger. They accounted for its lack of heat and its dimness of light by assuming it was much farther away from the earth than the sun. Moses made no such mistakes. The Word of god teaches that the form of the earth is a globe. While the ancients generally believed the earth to be flat, the Bible has consistently taught that the earth is globular in shape. Even in the time of Christopher Columbus, 1492, there were men who were afraid to sail with him in the search for a new route to the Indies because they were afraid if you sailed off very far you would sail over the edge of the earth. Isaiah wrote, Isaiah 40:22, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth. he stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." The word circle in the hebrew is clube. It means an arc or sphere, or a more exact conotation is sphericity, or roundness, clearly teaching that the world is shaped like a globe. This is astounding when we remember it was written in 700 BC, centuries before men believed the earth was round. But the revelation of god says, "he sits upon the circle of the earth." One of the modern demonstrations proving the earth is a globe is the fact that the surface of the ocean shows a curvature of about 8 inches to the mile. That's why the last thing we see of ship passing out of sight over the horizon is the top of the funnel. In view of this fact it is most interesting to read in Proverbs 8:27, "When he prepared the heavens I was there, when he set a compass upon the face of the deep". The revised version has it, "he set a circle upon the face of the deep." The god who originally made the oceans and the earth recorded the curvature of the ocean surface 1000 BC. From a certain point of view this is remarkable, and yet it is what one should expect since the Bible is a revelation of god to men. In harmony with the facts concerning the different time zones around the world, our lord said, when he would suddenly appear in his second coming, Luke 17:34-37, "I tell you that in that night there shall be two people in bed, and one shall be taken and the other left. Two women shall be grinding and the one shall be taken and the other left. Two men shall be in the field, one shall be taken and the other left." [...] At his appearing, [...] some will be in a part of the world where it is night. Others will be where it is early morning. [...] Another interesting statement the Bible makes far in advance of the knowledge of men was "the moon shineth not". Comparatively a few years ago, a scientist thought that the moon was a great luminous body like the sun. But 1500 years before the time of our lord, Job said (25:5) "Behold even to the moon that it shineth not." To Job that was knowledge superior not only to his contemporaries, but to all the sages and scientists for 3000 years after his time. How can this be explained, except to say that Job wrote by the inspiration of god. The psalmist said concerning the moon, Psalm 89:37, "It will be established forever like the moon, the faithful witness in the sky." Here once again we have the magnificent lyrical poetry of so much of Scripture. What does a witness do? Well, a witness sees and testifies to others concerning that which they have not seen or cannot see. What a graphic, if not dramatic statement concerning what the moon exactly does. When the sun is down we can not see it shine on the other side of the earth. However, the moon, high in the heavens sees and reflects the light back to us to be a witness. The fact of the reflective light of the moon was unknown in the days of David and yet David wrote of it. When our astronauts came back from the moon, they said something in relation to the scripture that is astonishing. They said: "The dust on the moon is beads, glass beads. They said they found the rocks on the moon splashed over with glass. No vegetation, no atmosphere, and the irregularities of the moon were gigantic; those great boulders and canyons. Do you have a movie screen? If it's a good one you'll notice it's covered with little tiny glass beads. Furthermore, we're told that the rocks of the moon are filled with titanium, and that titanium can reflect light better than a diamond. So, you see, on the moon there is no vegetation nor atmosphere to obstruct the light, and those rough surfaces on the moon are like those rough corrugations on the headlights of your automobile. In other words, the moon is nothing other than one enormous, giant reflector, just like the holy book says. he put the sun to shine by day, and the moon to reflect the light of it to the earth by night. In Job 26:7 it says, "He suspends the earth over nothing". Or "God hangeth the earth upon nothing." At the time that was written, every man on earth believed the world was held up by some kind of a solid foundation. The Egyptians believed it was held up by 5 columns, one in each corner and one in the middle. And if someone crawled to the edge of the earth, he could look at each one of the four columns, but the one in the middle was pure speculation. What did the world believe when the Word of god said that god hangeth the world upon nothing? You remember, we saw the philosophical Greeks, the educated Greeks, believed the world was held on the back of a great giant named Atlas. We saw the Hindus believed the world was on the back of a giant elephant, that was balanced on the back of a giant turtle, that was swimming in the cosmic sea. When the turtle moved, the elephants moved and the earth moved, and that's when we get our earthquakes. Some said the earth floated on water. When men sailed around the earth they discovered the earth touches nothing, and that nothing visible holds it in place. Nearly all the early physicists and philosophers, including Ptolomeu, believed the earth was a great flat disk surrounded by a great world river Oceanas. In fact, until about 500 years ago, all men believed the earth rested on some great solid foundation. Copernicus, the 16th century astronomer was the first to discover that the earth was poised in space. How amazing. Job declared 3000 years before Copernicus: "he suspends the earth over nothing." And he was absolutely and scientifically correct. The attraction of gravity is invoked to account for the earths affinity to the sun. But that doesn't explain anything, because no one knows what gravity is, or why it is. It is merely used to explain certain observed phenomena. Truly there is nothing that modern science can add or take away from the age-old statement that god hung the earth upon nothing. But it is no wonder, that many of the greatest philosophers, historians and scientists have held up the Bible as god's revelation, for not one statement within its pages, correctly interpreted, has ever been proven false. And not one discovery has ever proven a single statement in the Bible to be false [except most of it]. Believe me, we have a trustworthy revelation from god. ****************************end of article ******************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank