Fitter
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2006
- Messages
- 4,114
DOC knows it too as many atheists have told him so.
Well, I didn't completely ignore it, I did respond to one small part of it. It was a rather lengthy detailed post, if I get the time, I might respond to it. The question of the birds (and whales) was a big part of that site and I have been addressing that issue.
Having a magazine and staging 24 conventions does make a person wonder.
Lothian
should be banned
In June it was the 57th National Square Dance Convention. How long will you be wondering if square dancing is a belief system?
Last edited:
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
In that case I follow the religion of Torchwood with Captain Jack as the messiah,
the Doctor as God and Ianto as the holy Ghost. Not only do I subscribe to Torchwood Magazine, but I'm also going to a convention in the UK in October....
come to think of it, it actually makes sense: Not only is my religion not misogynic from the outset, but my messiah can't die.....
And may the Doctor keep you safe from the evil of the Dalek....
Whilst it is of course difficult to keep "on topic" when DOC is trying very hard to avoid answering posts that are directly on topic and he repeatedly tries to bring into the thread off-topic topics, please do try to keep on-topic. A discussion of whether atheism is a belief system or not is not on-topic for this thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Darat
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
What argument?
He offers a vague description of variable time theory, with absolutely no maths to back it up, and which is not supported by any evidence, and then simply compares the standard BB model timeline to the Genesis timeline, omitting several glaring inconsistencies.
The sentence,
Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! If the timescale is variable then people would still only live for 70 years, because, although the days and years would be shorter, the lifespans of the people would also be shorter, with the result that they would appear to be the same length to an internal observer. That's basic relativity!
Not very sure of his facts or interpretations, is he.
Um, no. There are mountains of incredibly convincing evidence that show that we almost certainly evolved from other animals. The fossil record, genetics, vestigial organs, parts of human anatomy that make absolutely no sense for a bipedal animal, but would be exactly what you expect in an animal that evolved a bipedal gait from a quadrupedal gait. Saying that this evidence is "subtle" is like saying that using a sledgehammer is a subtle way to crack a walnut shell.
Really? What order would you put them in? What sort of moron would create humans before there was an Earth, or Sun, or anything for them to eat? The ordering of the creation events in Genesis is blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain, and occurs in almost all creation myths. He says that a "plausible faker" would have used a different sequence, but doesn't really offer a plausible alternative sequence!
He also posits that fakers would have had God spending far more time creating humans, in order to show how special they were. I'm sorry, but how is being created "in God's image" not pretty bloody special?
Umm, no, not really.
To whit, take the following verses;
Except that there are huge numbers of seed bearing herbs and fruiting trees, and animals which are poisonous, and therefore aren't "meat" for humans.
So, God makes plants before he makes rain to let them survive, which doesn't mesh at all with standard theory, which has rain long before any plants.
Hang on, didn't God make all the animals before he made Adam??? I'm confused!
Doesn't God know these things? Why does he have to ask? Doesn't seem very omnipotent to me.
Oh, and Adam and Eve don't die when they eat the fruit, which is what God told them would happen. Was he lying?
Really? Serpents eat dust? News to me!
Us? US???? How many gods are there?
I could keep going, but really, I think I've made the point. The account in Genesis is internally inconsistent, inaccurate, and unsupported by any science.
Well, you didn't spend much time above dealing with what I believe is the main essence of the whole article and that is the parallel sequence of events. The way I see it the sequence in Genesis is amazingly close to what modern science states or theorizes.
Here is an excerpt from the article previously cited in post #667:
"If a human author had written Genesis 1 without God's help he could have presented/listed the 14 events mentioned in over 87 billion different sequences. How could a human author have selected the sequence, beginning with Light first and Man last, which has now (3600 years later) been shown to match the sequence that modern science accepts?"
And you asked about a plausible alternative. This is the one I offered:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3987106#post3987106
And what are some of the other creation myths that have a similar sequence of events as Genesis? You said almost all do.
Last edited:
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Yes, and I noted with interest which part it was that you responded to.
Which was precisely what you asked for.
Gee, thanks. I would have thought that you'd be so glad to have someone actually address the topic, instead of just accusing you of dishonesty (as you claim most of the posts do) that you'd jump at the chance. Still, beggars can't be choosers. I await you response with eager anticipation.
It was?
Funny, I count 12 uses of the word "bird", nine of them in just one single verse discussion, and not a single use of the word "whale".
In fact, the majority of his discussion has nothing to do with that.
PS, don't for a second think that I won't keep reminding you that you still haven't responded to my post. Particularly if you cite his page again.
Ryan O'Dine
OD’ing on Damitol
You must have missed both my and Hokulele's previous posts. The Hopi creation story I posted goes far beyond Genesis both in detail, and in the prophetic and accurate nature of its science. I’ll repost for convenience. (My comments are in red.)
As far as the sound resonating through the earth, Hokulele, in a bout of obviously mystical wisdom, added...
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Only if you cherrypick, and choose your interpretations carefully. That's what I meant when questioning how uncertain he seemed about a lot of his "facts". He keeps saying things like "well, this could refer to....". It could, or it could not, which is precisely the problem. He takes unclear phrases, interprets them vaguely, admits that they aren't specific, and then claims that they're a perfect match!!!
Apart from the simplistic maths he uses, the fact that the Genesis account doesn't match (which he himself admits) and the similarity and "accuracy" of other creation myths, he completely discounts the possibility of blind luck.
I read it. Of course, you're starting from the premise of, "what plausible version can I come up with, that's different from the scientific account, so that it demonstrates that it can be done easily". You could come up with any order you want. You could have God create the Earth last, and place all of the already created plants, animals and people on it. That isn't the point. How many creation myths actually do that? None that I know of.
Have a read for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth.
Also, look at this page, which discusses similarities between creation myths - http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths.html
There's more resources here - http://www.mythinglinks.org/ct~creation.html
I'm not doing all your work for you. If you're truly interested in learning, read.
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Yes, amazingly close if you
- assume that days may take a few billion years
- ignore the fact that night and day do not apply to the universe as a whole.
- ignore the fact that there are no waters behind the stars, wherever that may be.
- ignore the fact that the earth isn't actually older than the stars, or alternatively cook up an explanation involving abnormally thick clouds
- ignore the fact that plants aren't actually older than the stars, or cook up etc...
- accept that "create" sometimes means "wait for it to evolve"
- ignore the fact that fruit bearing plants obviously arose after the rise of land animals, and that grass is even more recent.
- ignore the fact that cattle isn't actually older than man.
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
How could the sequence be approximated?
Aside fromt he fact that it is incorrect, what if the author(s) simply looked at what governed what, and what depended on what?
The Earth is big, and we live on it. Obviously, it came before life.
Life seems to depend on water. Obviously, water came before life.
The water sits on the Earth, so either
It needn't have been random guesswork to make a sequential creation myth.
It does seem to require blind conviction and heavy confirmation bias to argue that because the evidence sequence of universe and solar system formation as well as evolution can be warped and twisted to a vague approximation of a Biblical legend (or two), that it proves the Bible (and by extension, it would seem, Judaism or Christianity) to be true.
Aside fromt he fact that it is incorrect, what if the author(s) simply looked at what governed what, and what depended on what?
The Earth is big, and we live on it. Obviously, it came before life.
Life seems to depend on water. Obviously, water came before life.
The water sits on the Earth, so either
a) the earth arose form water, or
b) the earth came before water
The light/dark su/moon and stars divisions are largely arbitrary, but since all those things affect life on this planet, the reasonable assumption is that they came before said life.b) the earth came before water
It needn't have been random guesswork to make a sequential creation myth.
It does seem to require blind conviction and heavy confirmation bias to argue that because the evidence sequence of universe and solar system formation as well as evolution can be warped and twisted to a vague approximation of a Biblical legend (or two), that it proves the Bible (and by extension, it would seem, Judaism or Christianity) to be true.
You want Genesis to be written for the people of 2008. It wasn't, it was written for primitive desert wanderers (3600 years ago) who probably didn't even have a word for a million much less a billion, who didn't know that the earth went around the sun, didn't know the sun was a star, didn't know the earth existed in space (unless they read Job 26:7), and didn't know where rain came from, etc.
And you seem not to have read the whole article cited in post 667 which gives possible reasons for the discrepancies in the time frame for the creation of stars. I'm currently not a literalist and I've always said that even before this thread. Yes there are some things that seem difficult to explain, but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that we don't know about yet. There are all kinds of cancer out there that we can't explain the cause of, but does that mean there is not a cause.
And even with some of the hard to explain things in Genesis, the sequence of events is amazing given their total lack of scientific knowledge.
Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first
Genesis 1:1b - then the earth
Gen 1:10 - then land and sea
Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea
Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals
Gen 1:27 - lastly humans
Why not just say God created everything at once, why spread it out over a time frame.
Last edited:
bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
What would have happened if Moses told the illiterate hungry desert wanderers that the sun was a star, the earth was round, the earth traveled around the sun, etc.? They probably would have thought he was crazy, and would have said it's time for a new leader.