Friday, October 12, 2012
Can Fundagelicals Solve ONE Simple Conundrum?
I only ask them (especially one guy I will call "Mr. Straight Talk") to solve one elementary conundrum which - if he can - will disclose he's competent and qualified to critique difficult scientific theories - from the Big Bang to Quantum theory, and all the cosmology in between.
This concerns a pointed remark I made in my previous blog about GOOPr Morons, e.g. http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-do-we-educate-goopr-morons.html
to the effect that their bible falls flat on a key astrophysical test. Of course, prior to this he gives the usual disclaimer, abdicating any rational accountability, by asserting:
"First off, it's physically impossible for man's finite mind to comprehend our Creator! "
Convenient! So then ANY rational answer provided as an alternative to his bollocks can be dismissed as "being physically unable to comprehend our Creator". If that's the case, I suggest the "creator" ain't worth much since if its actions are not in accord with rationality it must be irrational. If its actions are consistently that way, it must be either mad itself, or the product of madmen! Anyway, let us move on to his claim, in response to my citation of Gen:1, 1-15, to wit:
"“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day”
And my interpretation of the Sun as being the "light" referred to in the last three sentences. He insists this is all wrong. According to Mr. "Know it All" in his most recent blog (wherein he actually compares me to his dog 'Rebel' in terms of "lacking common sense") :
"Now, my dear atheist friend, this light is NOT the sun, which was created on the fourth day, according to verse 16 , "And 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." Hence, it was some fixed light source outside the earth."
Well, let's see if we can figure this out, using his interpretation. A "fixed light source outside the Earth". Hmmmm! That leaves only the Moon, and the nearest stars. Ok, include distant stars too, but their light - let's understand would be too feeble to matter to Earth, i.e. provide enough radiation to support photosynthesis for plant life.
Meanwhile, the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is still 4.2 light years distant. Again, much too far for its light to even cast a shadow! That leaves only the Moon. BUT ...how is the Moon able to provide light, since it isn't a self-radiating orb but shines by reflected SUN-light! That means, the SUN must be the light, or there is NO light.
Conveniently neither he, or it seems his good Book, is able to provide us any clear idea of what this other exterior light is. Understandably - in failing this basic test for fluency, scientific understanding and ....his claim that his book can be interpreted LITERALLY...he veers off into babbling about "interpretations". He then writes:
"In reference to that light, the rotating earth passed through a day-night cycle. The word "day" is used in three different senses in Genesis: ( 1 ) a twelve-hour period of light ( 1:5; 14, 16, 18 ); ( 2 ) a twenty-four hour period; and ( 3 ) the entire creative week ( 2:4 ); the qualifying phrase, "And the evening and the morning were the first day," indicates beyond any doubt that the word, as it is used here, is a twenty-four hour period of time. "
But, perusing all those Genesis quotes one finds not a single quantitative indicator, i.e. 24-hour period, 12-hour period or any other. For example, Gen 1:5 simply states: "And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
No hint of any 12 hour anything! (Indeed, this would have been impossible anyway, since the early primitive Earth had a much higher angular momentum than it does now making an entire rotation in about 6.8 hrs. With the interjection of the Moon (some theorize via direct collision) the resulting gravitational -tidal influence caused a progressive slowing down of the rotation which is still going on. (The main reason we had to add a so-called "leap second" some months ago, see, e.g. http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/where-did-that-extra-second-come-from.html )
The point is it would be astronomically and physically impossible to claim a "24 hour day" (or even 12 hour day) for the primitive Earth, before the gravitational -tidal effects of the Moon slowed it to that extent - which was BILLIONS of years later!
But then, hey, what do I know? I am simply approaching his biblical quotation from the viewpoint of astronomy-astrophysics and yes, reason.
Besides, what he will surely tell me is that my poor, limited human mind is "physically unable to comprehend" the mind of "God".
Evidently, his can't either.
But at least it's nice to see from his hyper -interpretative responses, e.g.
"The particular expressions such as light and darkness, day and night, evening and morning, seem to require such an interpretation. Also it should be noted that every single occurrence of the word "yom" where it is used to summarize one of the creative days is accompanied by the numerical adjective. It is always, the evening and morning were one day ( Heb. yom 'echad ), or there was evening and there was morning, a second day ( yom sheni )."
He finally admits once and for all the good book CANNOT be taken literally.
So, maybe he's not a fundy after all!