Peanut Gallery

This evinces a faulty understanding of probability, most notably the popular myth that the probabilities of things that happened in the past are bivalent; i.e. "1 if they happened" and "0 if they didn't."Probability is a comparison between outcomes and the outcome space, and the equations for that have no term for time. As you can see:No term for time; the function P(a) ("the probability of outcome a") returns the same value regardless of whether the event occurred in the past (and thus the result is already known) or is expected to occur in the future (and thus the result is not yet known.) Probabilities in the past are not "one or zero" because probability is the comparison between the outcome and the outcome space, and neither of those change simply because the event occurred in the past or the future.The result of this is that we absolutely can specify "in between conditions of knowledge" because neither the outcome nor the outcome space will change based on our knowledge about where pens are. If the pen is on the desk, that doesn't change the a priori probability that the pen was on the desk. If the a priori probability was very low, but we found the pen there anyway, that is a very significant outcome. This forms the basis of "Bayesian probability", the notion that low-probability events are more significant than high-probability ones. No. Spacial-location probabilities are not based on the number of areas where the object could be found, but on the area of the areas where the object could be found integrated with the distance of the area from the object's current location. So, no, you do not create a probability of "1/2" by eliminating the desk.You're really demonstrating either a deeply flawed understanding of probability here, or a willingness to pervert even mathematics in service of your religious beliefs. I continue to grieve for the medical misfortune that has befallen one of EvC's once-brightest intellects. Not so. Probability is based on the comparison between outcomes and the outcome space. Only in the most textbook cases can the outcome space be fully known but that's not necessary in establishing probability to a significant degree of reliability; the outcome space is dominated, after all, by the most likely probabilities.

Hi bluegenes, You are correct he did not know about Pangea.In 1912 Alfred Wegener first presented his his theory of continental drift.This is the first knowledge of all land mass being in one place in the past.Yet the author of Genesis recorded that at one time all land mass was in one place at one time in the past.How did he know that information 3500 years ago without information that was not available to mankind?If you desire you can say "I don't know".I simply believe he received the information from a Super Natural Being as you call Him.If you have a different source he could have gotten the information please present it. Now you start with the smoke and mirrors.You said nothing about errors that you believe occured.You said the ancients having knowledge that was not available to them without outside help.I presented two pieces of information that the writer of Genesis wrote about that was not available to him.I can only imagine someone 3500 years ago telling how a human began to exist. It wasn't even talked about 65 years ago.Yet he recorded that man came from the earth as he was formed of the dust of the ground. It is a scientific fact that mankind has all the elements I presented to you which is found in the earth.If I understand anything about the origin of life that supposidly evolved into mankind it came from sort of primortal soup.He also recorded that the land mass was in one place in time past.That is two pieces of information that was not available 3500 years ago.Your so called theory is that all God's are made up in the mind of man.If the author of Genesis did not get this information from a Super Natural Being, where did he get it from?Let me present another piece of information for your consideration. How did the author of Genesis know that there was a mother language of all languages.The information found Here was not available to the author of Genesis. It hasn't been around very long. I have presented 3 pieces of evidence that according to you would falsify your theory.But you will do here as you have done in the debate with RAZD and ignore anything I have said.Now if you want to eliminate any of the 3 examples I have given so far all you have to do is present where the author of Genesis obtained his informatin that:Man came from the dust of the ground.All land mass was in one place in time past.That all spoken languages came from one language. Remember there was many languages at the time of the writing of Genesis.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Coyote, Can I play this game when talking about scientific things?But out of curosity how many things would I have to come up with that was written about some 3500 years ago that the informtion of actual existence did not occur until the last couple of hundred years to satisfy the possibility of there being some Super Natural Being that gave this information to the authors?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

How about trying to explain the massive boo-boo of the global flood?Before you try to claim that "dust" equals a host of specific chemicals, try to explain how this "Super Natural Being" missed it so badly with that flood story.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

He didn't. He knew of the area around him and that's what he was describing.You are the one making the giant leap to connect it.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Assuming your interpretation is correcyt, I don't think we need turn to the supernatural to explain how men that never saw other physical continents went on to describe the world in terms of there being only one.Nor do we need a deity to explain how a people that crafted pots by shaping clay might have come up with the notion of their own creation stemming from a similar process. Just like with Khnum, Prometheus, Obatala, Nwa and so on.

Well, I could give you two. One is obvious, if you look at the title of my theory, and the other is observation. Or rather, knowledge he might have from the observations of travellers. His people would only have known of one conjoined landmass, wouldn't they? Perhaps you should change your avatar.

You beat me by 2 minutes.

ICANT's just responding to a bit in the GB thread where I said that I had searched the creation myths for knowledge our ancestors couldn't have had. This was in the context that the stories could have been distorted over time, which is why ICANT should have a little more leeway than usual to ignore the obviously wrong parts.

Hi oni, 1. Why would it be necessary for him to name the actual elements in the human body?Prior to 1 AD the known elements were gold, silver, copper, iron, lead, tin, mecury, sulfer and carbon. During the time from 1 AD to 1735 AD was added Arsenic (Magnus ~1250)
Antimony (17th century or earlier)
Phosphorus (Brand 1669)
Zinc (13th Century India)Knowledge of all other came after 1735.Since that information was not given to the author of Genesis it was not avaliable.2. Since He made the ground He wouldn't have had to use the ground He just chose to do it that way.I am well aware that all elements are not contained in all soils today. But we are talking about a brand new earth with soil that was not poluted by mankind. Yes humans have made a mess of it haven't we. Not if you use my timeline of the first man that was formed from the dust of the ground in the day God created the Heaven and the Earth.That was several billion years ago if it was not trillions upon trillions of years ago. They had very limited knowledge of the elements in the land as I presented above.Now would you like to give a source for the information that the author of Genesis need to write: This would be a picture of Pangea. How would the author of Genesis know that there was only one language at a time in the past? There was many languages when Genesis was written.Today we have several theories the one that seems to be most accepted today is the Scientific monogenesis: The Mother Tongue theory.So it is accepted today that at some time in the past there was one language.Remember I am not trying to prove anything.I am only pointing out the possibility of a Super Natural Being which would falsify bluegenes so called theory.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Maybe he was just fucking lucky? Hey - how many delusionary people are there in recorded history? What are the odds that one of them made a lucky guess?BUT- Pangaea was not the initial condition, as bluegenes has already pointed out - so even though this guy made a statement that later was shown to have been true in the past, it was not true in the past before that.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Please, ICANT darling, think a bit will you? He's invented the story of Adam and Eve and their family. Of course he would see them as speaking one language.

Hi Coyote, Coyote I do not have a problem with the flood of the Bible because i believe in Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth".Since I believe God created the Earth I also believe He can do anything with it He desires.If it takes a miracle that is no problem.As I have said in the past I don't argue the flood. I may at times point out things that happen on a daily bases such as the bay of fundy that proves the water could rise 55' in 6 hours and leave in the next 6 hours and leave no evidence of having been there, as pointing to the possibility of the flood. I have designed an ark that has over 18 acres of floor space and for the smaller animals there could be much more added.But that is not what I am discussing here.Here I am presenting things that was recorded over 3500 years ago that the information of such was not available at that time.Now if you have an alternate source that the author of Genesis could have acquired that information please present it.BTW bluegenes did not say anything about what may or may not be false information.He said information our ancestors recorded that they did not have access too.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Mod, Since the author of Genesis was raised and educated in Egypt in the house of Pharoah as the son of his daughter why wouldn't he know of different land masses.Egypt had boats for over 500 years by the time of the writing of Genesis.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi xong, As I understand it Pangaea has happened several times since the earth began to exist. And not always in the same shape. One would be lucky, 2 would be extra lucky, 3 would be unbelievable but I ain't done yet there are a lot of other things I can present if I choose.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."