|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Probably the reason this person percieved such hostility is that most intelligent people simply cannot handle pompus displays of unrestrained and willfull ignorance.
There are massive inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, which is why it remains just that - a theory. Foremost among these unresolved issues is, first, how evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy increase. Starting with this statement and the equally as rediculous ones that follow, any person with an impression that they were enganged in a debate with even a moderatly knowledgable person would immediatly have that perception destroyed. What authority or conviction did this person feel they had to make such a sophmoric error about the second law of thermodynamics? Even the most remedial review of physics, something that you can recieve in an entry level physics class, is enough to dispell this TIRED OLD CANNARD! What you find time and time again in these debates is that the opponents of evolution do not care about checking their facts. If at some point they heard these even less than sophmoric attempts to poke "holes" in evolution, they have very obviously made ZERO further effort to determine if they are actually true. See, I think that is what sets science minded folks apart from creationists. Creationists are perfectly willing to take information that agrees with their position completely at face value without challange. The frustration percieved is then just the equivalent of trying to convince an insane person that they are NOT in fact Elvis and that the government is NOT in fact using mind control devices to experiment on regular citizens. What is worse is all you have to do to an equivalent belief is assign the word "religion" to it, get enough people to believe it, and then you are somehow deemed qualified to comment on matters for which scientists and experts have spent their entire lives learning and contributing. What arrogance! What sheer and unrestrained ignorance. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But this is all stuff that you've made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But this is full of halfwitted lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You have called the magical imaginary scientist who agrees with you:
* Penfold (message #203)* Penholds (message #217) * Putnam (message #238) You have presented no actual science, have you noticed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
It will help you understand my views better (you have gotten a few important ones very very wrong)
OK, I read those posts, and agree that there is a lot of information you have checked into. I also agree that there is plenty of room for translation problems and other transmission corruption to have occurred. I didn’t see anything that changed what I think your position is, but feel free to correct me where I’m wrong. But with all of that, I don’t understand why you try so hard (and contradict modern scholarship) to claim that Babel and a global flood happened. There are tons of reasons to reject both - especially something like the flood. Your view that the ideas in Genesis went through tons of incorrect translations and transmission corruptions means that you’ve already discarded the idea that one can read the Bible and know what is the word of God and what isn’t. So I guess I don’t understand why you care to preserved a divine origin, if that divine origin is so far removed that one may as well read the Enuma elish , which is therefore one step closer to God than the Bible.
.(reminder; I am just looking at what ancient peoples wrote down, and then stacking it up with comparitive anthropology and THEN looking at what is scientifically possible POSSIBLE)
Well, yes you are - but then you are going past that to insert modern science into Genesis where it doesn’t match what you want, and adding speculations that aren’t supported so as to come up with this convoluted history that somehow serves your desires. Claiming that there was a global flood and a real tower of Babel goes beyond linguistics and legends - it makes testable claims about the physical world which have been tested and shown to be false. The comparison of the earlier flood and such stories could be a good thread, and there are no doubt others here who are better versed on this than I (Arach?). Anyway, let’s see if there is energy around that next week. I’ll be out until then.
The issue that people (like you!) demand that Genesis should have seperated every last stage of evolution.Therefore the fact that it mentions the category of water life as coming before all other life (lets the waters bring...)simply isnt enough because people like you think it should be a 2007 science textbook to be credited as a document that could have (maybe) been descended of a revelation from God in the pre/proto historic period in amns past. No, I only ask people to back up their own claim. What usually happens is someone says that the Bible is inerrant and that the order in Genesis is correct, something that has odds of 1 in ((insert large number)). Then, when the story is looked at, it’s clear that it’s not at all in the correct order, at which point the original claimant starts making excuses, like the ones you have been making, for why it’s not in order. So that makes me wonder why they even bother, if they are going to negate their own claim? Actually, it used to make me wonder - it doesn’t anymore. It’s very smart marketing - if the listener is gullible, then they swallow the “correct order” line. If the listener is not gullible, then all one has to do is make some lame excuses, and quietly exit to go on to repeat the “correct order” line to some new potential convert, thus the gullible are selected to be Bible believers. In your case, you’ve already dispensed with the claim of inerrancy - blaming errors on transmission. So since it’s clearly in the wrong order, it’s convenient to blame any errors on corruption - I could do the same with any creation myth, or indeed any story, saying that it really describes, say, the water cycle, or plate tectonics, or whatever.
Equinox clearly is one of those kids who failed every teaching in school but self-esteme. I hope you feel better. If you’ve put forward your views in Christian forums or in churches, I doubt you’ll get as tolerant response as you gotten here. Try it - see if anyone objects to your saying that the story in Genesis is incorrect due to transmission corruption, something that most of us here agree with you on. Have a fun day- -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Deleted - double post
Edited by Equinox, : - -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
My reading of 'kind' in genesis would be, as a minimum, the species sited in genesis (veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals, humans). Veg = KingdomFish = Class Mammals= Class Birds = Class Animals = Kingdom Humans = Species That’s so incoherent it makes my brain hurt. This guy clearly knows nothing about science. That, coupled with so many other really pathetic arguments (many so bad that creationists tell other creationists not to use them), make me think that “IAMJOSEPH” is an atheist who is intentionally trying to look stupid and pretending to be a creationist just to make creationists look bad. Look, he also made up bible verses about Isaac, and changed the name of his made up “scientist”, and so many other obviously intentional stupid things. If it weren’t for the fact that creationists often do nearly as stupid stuff, I probably would have caught on sooner. How about you, did he have you going too? -Equinox -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rakaz Junior Member (Idle past 6113 days) Posts: 15 From: The Netherlands Joined: |
quote:quote: That is just silly and reeks of quote-mining. Last time I checked 'faith' is still defined as “believe without evidence” and in my last post I've explained multiple times that science is the exact opposite; science is believe based on evidence.
quote:quote: Even though gravity itself seems pretty stable, our observations may change and in fact have changed over time. Instruments get more sensitive and allow us to observe things that we previously were unaware of. It is not unthinkable that we will observe phenomenon in the future that we cannot explain with the current law of gravity. Even the law of gravity cannot be proven conclusively and it is ridiculous to expect that our current understanding of gravity will explain all observations we make in the future. In case you are wondering what this has to do with evolution; evolution is as much reality as gravity is. Even though scientists can never conclusively prove either law or theory.
quote:quote: I'm not sure you properly read my post or understand my reasoning.Perhaps I was not clear enough. We can safely ignore Genesis 1:1 while investigating the scientific accuracy of Genesis 1 because the existence of God is outside the realm of science. Genesis 1 as a whole is easily proven to be a myth because the story clearly contradicts evidence that we can observe. Genesis 1:1 is the first line from that myth. So Genesis 1:1 in context is a myth (as far as you can call a single line a myth). Even if there is a God and he did create life then this will not make Genesis 1 any less myth. It will just make Genesis 1:1 a single accurate part of larger myth. Nobody said that myths cannot contain small nuggets of accurate information.
quote:quote: Like I said before; it is nonsensical to talk about proving or disproving the existence of God. Science cannot prove it either way, because science is about observations and something that cannot be observed by definition falls outside of the realm of science. Personally I also feel it falls outside of the realm of common sense, but that is a different story altogether. Creationists seem to believe that this the inability to disprove God supports their position that God does exists. This is flawed logic. Just because you cannot disprove something does not mean something is likely. The probability of the existence of God falls into the same category as the existence of the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster and the celestial teapot. There is no evidence for any of those, yet it is impossible to disprove any one of them. If you compare this to any of the theories that scientists have come up with - how unlikely they are - they are more likely than the existence of God. Simply because some evidence is better than no evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
PaulK-
Thanks, that clarifies where the number comes from, and that it is irrelevant. And also, Dr. A pointed out that Gen 22:5 clearly shows that Isaac is a “boy”, a “child”, or a “lad” at the time, depending on your bible translation. Have a fun day- -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That, coupled with so many other really pathetic arguments (many so bad that creationists tell other creationists not to use them), make me think that “IAMJOSEPH” is an atheist who is intentionally trying to look stupid and pretending to be a creationist just to make creationists look bad. Look, he also made up bible verses about Isaac, and changed the name of his made up “scientist”, and so many other obviously intentional stupid things. If it weren’t for the fact that creationists often do nearly as stupid stuff, I probably would have caught on sooner. How about you, did he have you going too? I would point out that Kent Hovind is a real person who is really in prison for really being that stupid. Still, I see your point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Here is another one -
There is no document subject to more scrutiny than the OT, and this has been seen as very reliable. I mean, there is no document in existence which is unchanged for 2300 years (scrolls), except stone etchings carved on the pyramids. The Septuagint greek edition of the OT (300 BCE) is an independent cross reference of the scrolls affirmation. He says the Dead sea scrolls don’t have changes, and doesn’t mention the literally thousands of differences between them and the current OT. I’ve got the DSS at home - they come in handy when inerrantists make this claim - Psalms is often a good place to start, with the new Psalms that are in there and the hundreds of other changes. Of course, even Isaiah, which the most similar, has hundreds of differences - and it’s even the one that inerrantists most often quote as being “identical”. This line was one of the things that made me suspect he’s faking this ignorance (though the new story about Isaac asking to be bound did a lot too). All the best- -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I did not argue from the translation. Although 37 would seem rather old to be called a "young man".
quote: That is not supported by the story, which allows an unspecified time between the sacrifice and Sarah's death.
quote: Given that so far you haven't even named one of these commentaries let alone explained the reasoning that underlies the conclusions the only surprise is that you are so insistent on trying to argue the point. And what would be the Christian reason for "altering" the age as you allege they have done ?
quote: Well that's very odd since Jewish sources insist that the current calendar was introduced by Rabbi Hillel II around 358 AD. And that's nothign to do with Pope Gregory or 4 CE. Are the Jews lying about the calendar they use ?
quote:So's the Jewish calendar. It's based on lunar months and adds an extra month every so often to compensate for the difference with the solar year. If you think otherwise I have to ask where you get your ideas from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You guys are building towers of babel in mid air. The scrolls are regarded the same as today, with no variation in its narratives from the Septuagint or the current OT. I have many links which say this. The discrepencies are allocated to alphabet styles and some differences of sylables, and writings style of scribes, etc. If there were any real differences, there would have been a major consequence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I have many links which say this. How about actual scholarly works by people who are experts in the field? Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing? A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Not at this particular spacetime. Isaac was not yet married, and the texts allocate very long lifespans for almost all figures at this time.
quote: True, it is not said explicitly, but it is alluded to, and the oral law expands on it. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 37 year figure is recorded in 1000s of years' sages commentary: there is no motive to alter this age - I am at a loss to encounter it as an issue. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that so far you haven't even named one of these commentaries let alone explained the reasoning that underlies the conclusions the only surprise is that you are so insistent on trying to argue the point. And what would be the Christian reason for "altering" the age as you allege they have done ?[/quote] I will get you back-up for Isaac being 37, and the calendar references. The calendar was used upon entering canaan. The Israelites were told the laws won't apply in the desert but will become law when in Canaan. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024