The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:12 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 139 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:01 pm 
The General wrote:
The part where the quote you gave somehow disproves the one I gave.


Ah. Simple. The quote you gave is a precursor to the quote I gave - same chapter of the same book of the Bible, KJV version.

In whole: Genesis 7:17-20 -

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bib ... howxref=on

"(17)For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. (18) The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. (19) They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. (20) The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet."

I took your quotation as an arguement implying that the bible did NOT mention a great flood covering the whole earth. Whereas just a few sentences further on it claims that the mountains were covered with more'n 20' of water.

Did I misinterpret your unaugmented "Neither was the biblical one, necessarily." in response to Animal's "That's not a global flood. It had global effects, but the whole planet wasn't under water." ?

If so - please clarify.

Thanks in advance,
John


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:06 pm 
I just don't see that 20 feet of water necessarily means that it was a global flood. It would depend partly on where these particular mountains where, I think.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:09 pm 
[quote="The General"]I just don't see that 20 feet of water necessarily means that it was a global flood. It would depend partly on where these particular mountains where, I think.[/quote]

For a bible literalist, you're being rather deliberately wishywashy on literally interpreting the bible...

Question - can you have water covering the peak of a mountain to 20' depth - and NOT have everything else around it covered in water to a GREATER depth?

Of course not.

Literal answer - world was flooded.

Thank you for playing. Next!

-John


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:10 pm 
To how far, though? Just because one particular range was covered doesn't mean the entire planet was.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:10 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
htg wrote:
Jerm's list of alternative theories :roll: Sorry, but it deserved nothing else. And pi=3 again!


Terribly sorry, my good man. I was under the impression that since creationists are trying to get one instance of crappy Biblical science into schools, they might as well try to get all the instances of crappy Biblical science into schools. It appears it only applies to crappy Biblical science that's specially chosen.

Quote:
Peer-reviewed source supporting the flood? How about from the 19th century?


19th century? Whoa, let's not get too modern here. In any case, even in the 19th century, even creationists were forced to admit there was no evidence for a flood. (And let's see some of these sources.)

Quote:
Seriously, though, your definition of peer-reviewed would exclude any kind of source I could bring, wouldn't it?


How about it means that it is reviewed by a group of scientists who are:
- knowledgable in the field.
- capable of looking at evidence as objectively as possible.
- willing to admit when they make errors.
- willing to admit when the evidence points out flaws in their thinking.
- open-minded in general.
- from a wide variety of cultures, ethnic backgrounds, religions, political beliefs, etc.
- not simply trying to pat each other on the back for finding evidence against the "dreaded evolutionists".
- provide details and references regarding their data and experiments.

That sounds pretty good to me.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Last edited by Jeremiah Smith on Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:17 pm 
The General wrote:
I just don't see that 20 feet of water necessarily means that it was a global flood. It would depend partly on where these particular mountains where, I think.

OK. One more time. Same citation. For at least the third time.
"(19) They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet."

Question - are there mountains on earth, biblically referenced or otherwise, which AIN'T under, I quote, "the entire heavens", unquote?

Again, you're trying to weasel out of a straightforward, literal interpretation of the bible.

And guess what. I'm tired enough of this that I'm not about to let you.

-John


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:23 pm 
jeremiahsmith wrote:
Animal wrote:
Peer-reviewed source supporting the flood? How about from the 19th century?


19th century? Whoa, let's not get too modern here. In any case, even in the 19th century, even creationists were forced to admit there was no evidence for a flood. (In any case, let's see some of these sources.)


Uhh, that wasn't me. That was htg that wrote that.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:26 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Genesis 6:5-8 wrote:
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.


Genesis 6:11-13 wrote:
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.


Genesis 6:17 wrote:
17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.


Genesis 6:21-23 wrote:
21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.


These verses strongly indicate God meant to wipe out everything on the planet. Everything. As in, the whole freakin' planet. Are you saying God was unable to do so?

Genesis 8:4 wrote:
4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.


There are two mountains in Turkey with the name Ararat: Mt. Ararat and Lesser Ararat, with heights 5137m (16,853 feet) and 3896m (12,782 feet). The water had to cover at least that high for the ark to get dumped there. Can you provide evidence for a flood that deep in that area in that timeframe?

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:27 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Animal wrote:
Uhh, that wasn't me. That was htg that wrote that.


Doh. Stupid nested quote tags.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:31 pm 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:08 am
Posts: 305
Location: The Great Northern Deciduous Forests
Jerm, Animal & Raif: If you can find these kind of 'problems' with the Bible, what makes you think Christians can't? And have answers for them? With that in mind, have another look at Jerm's list, and see if you can't cross off a few.

Animal: As I responded to sun tzu way back, I have a degree in Engineering, and to amplify, I also work in that field. Note that I do not claim extraordinary knowledge of biology - just more than average - and certainly not enough to hold my own in a hard science debate on evolution vs. creation.
Animal wrote:
From my mother's bloodstream, originally. Nice try at a dodge, though; you know what I'm talking about.

Actually it's not a dodge. Way simplified, the matter that makes up your body comes from the food you (and your mother) ate, which in turn came from plants, which grew themselves from the soil. Dusty enough yet?
Animal wrote:
So answer the question

If we all turn together to Genesis 1...
Animal wrote:
It would exclude religious apologetics, and restrict the input to actual geologists.

Fair enough. Unfortunately, I do not have any such sources on hand, though I can go and find some. As I implied, I tend to distance myself from this whole debate, and if you'll review my posts, you'll see I've neither brought arguments against evolution, nor arguments for creationism.

So for my conclusion; The matter, as it stands now, does not in any way, shape or form constitute gutting. Nor does a creationist perspective on biology magically make such learning worthless.

Henk G.

_________________
Why are canines called canines when feline canines are bigger than canine canines?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:35 pm 
Discarnate wrote:
The General wrote:
I just don't see that 20 feet of water necessarily means that it was a global flood. It would depend partly on where these particular mountains where, I think.

OK. One more time. Same citation. For at least the third time.
"(19) They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet."

Question - are there mountains on earth, biblically referenced or otherwise, which AIN'T under, I quote, "the entire heavens", unquote?

Again, you're trying to weasel out of a straightforward, literal interpretation of the bible.

And guess what. I'm tired enough of this that I'm not about to let you.

-John


Crap. Okay, my mistake.
I still think the Great Flood story refers to the end of the ice age, though.


Last edited by The General on Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:38 pm 
htg wrote:
Jerm, Animal & Raif: If you can find these kind of 'problems' with the Bible, what makes you think Christians can't? And have answers for them? With that in mind, have another look at Jerm's list, and see if you can't cross off a few.

Animal: As I responded to sun tzu way back, I have a degree in Engineering, and to amplify, I also work in that field. Note that I do not claim extraordinary knowledge of biology - just more than average - and certainly not enough to hold my own in a hard science debate on evolution vs. creation.
Animal wrote:
From my mother's bloodstream, originally. Nice try at a dodge, though; you know what I'm talking about.

Actually it's not a dodge. Way simplified, the matter that makes up your body comes from the food you (and your mother) ate, which in turn came from plants, which grew themselves from the soil. Dusty enough yet?


It's a dodge. That's not what whoever wrote down the old myths that became Genesis meant, and you know it.

htg wrote:
Animal wrote:
So answer the question

If we all turn together to Genesis 1...


For which there's absolutely no physical evidence in support.

Do you think that Adam and Eve were real people? That they were really the first two people, ever?

Who do you think these people were?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mauer.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/petralona.jpg

htg wrote:
Animal wrote:
It would exclude religious apologetics, and restrict the input to actual geologists.

Fair enough. Unfortunately, I do not have any such sources on hand, though I can go and find some.


Not in a peer-reviewed science journal. I bet you can't.

htg wrote:
As I implied, I tend to distance myself from this whole debate, and if you'll review my posts, you'll see I've neither brought arguments against evolution, nor arguments for creationism.


No, you've been doing a lot of tapdancing.

htg wrote:
So for my conclusion; The matter, as it stands now, does not in any way, shape or form constitute gutting. Nor does a creationist perspective on biology magically make such learning worthless.

Henk G.


As far as science goes, it's worthless.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:44 pm 
[quote="The General"]Crap. Okay, my mistake.
I still think the Great Flood story refers to the end of the ice age, though. [quote]

OK - on what do you base that?

-John


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:49 pm 
htg wrote:
Jerm, Animal & Raif: If you can find these kind of 'problems' with the Bible, what makes you think Christians can't? And have answers for them? With that in mind, have another look at Jerm's list, and see if you can't cross off a few.

I think you missed the point. How are they any less important than creationism? Why would you choose to put creationism in schools and not any of the list?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:51 pm 
Raif wrote:
htg wrote:
Jerm, Animal & Raif: If you can find these kind of 'problems' with the Bible, what makes you think Christians can't? And have answers for them? With that in mind, have another look at Jerm's list, and see if you can't cross off a few.

I think you missed the point. How are they any less important than creationism? Why would you choose to put creationism in schools and not any of the list?


Camel's nose under the tent, mebbe?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:00 am 
Discarnate wrote:
The General wrote:
Crap. Okay, my mistake.
I still think the Great Flood story refers to the end of the ice age, though.
Quote:

OK - on what do you base that?

-John


1. it's the only flood to my knowledge that could be close to the one described in the bible.

2. numerous mythologies throughout the world mention a great flood.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:02 am 
Just want to throw out one little thought. And this is not coming from a Creationist or anything like that, just someone who calls things like he sees them...

On the issue of the publication of scientific journals... its a bit of Catch-22, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the the argument goes that Creationists won't be taken seriously until they get some coverage in a respectable journal. On the other hand, if there exists a strong bias to not take them seriously, the criteria can never be met. So basically the rules have been set and the judges establish to kill them before they ever start.

Now, that might be the goal and the result everyone wants, but at the same time I'm uncomfortable if it's being hid behind a facade of intellectually objectivity.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:03 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
htg wrote:
Jerm, Animal & Raif: If you can find these kind of 'problems' with the Bible, what makes you think Christians can't? And have answers for them? With that in mind, have another look at Jerm's list, and see if you can't cross off a few.


The problem with a significant portion of the apologetic replies to various contradictions and errors is that they're not based on any evidence, the same with creationist arguments. Just because they can come up with responses doesn't mean they're good responses. They claim words have been mistranslated (but only when that word appears in verses that are contradictory.) They claim that certain parts are not meant to be taken literally (but they can't decide for sure which parts are literal or not.) They claim that the author meant something else (but they can't agree on what the author meant, nor could they even know for sure what the original author meant.) They claim the verse was taken out of textual context (but forget that non-Christians can see the same context by reading the verses before and after.) They claim the verse was taken out of historical context (but forget that non-Christians can see the same context by looking at the same history.) They claim that contradictions can be resolved with an quick easy explanation (but the explanation has no evidence to support it whatsoever.)

Here's a quick one... Matthew 1:16: "and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Luke 3:23-24: "Now Jesus...was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, [...]"

So Matt says Jesus' paternal grandfather was Jacob, while Luke says it was Heli.

Would you care to explain? And then back up the explanation with evidence from either the Bible or the historical context?

Quote:
Actually it's not a dodge. Way simplified, the matter that makes up your body comes from the food you (and your mother) ate, which in turn came from plants, which grew themselves from the soil. Dusty enough yet?


The soil, product of earth, product of stellar material, product of earlier stellar material, product of atoms, product of electrons and nuclei, product of energy condensing out of the big bang. Genealogies are fun!

Basically, matter can be traced back pretty much to the origin of the universe. Before that, we don't know yet.

By the way, before you say it: Saying "Since your explanation doesn't explain such-and-such a thing and my explanation does, it means my explanation is right!" is the logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity.

Hint, hint: creationists make that fallacy a lot too.

Quote:
If we all turn together to Genesis 1...


I don't know how things are on your world, but here on Earth, unsupported Bronze Age superstitions are not usually viable sources for anything scientific.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Last edited by Jeremiah Smith on Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:07 am 
/me applauds Jerm. Take a bow, vorpal bunny slippers boy.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:10 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Gerald wrote:
On the other hand, if there exists a strong bias to not take them seriously, the criteria can never be met.


Creationists rarely make the science journals, not because of anti-creationist bias, but because their science is invariably flawed. If creationists did actual science, they'd be in the journals like everyone else. Still, even creationists can get into the journals when they do real work: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA325.html Item 3. Evolutionists have to go through the same process; if an evolutionist does crappy work, they don't make the journals.

If someone actually gave hard solid evidence that the current theory of evolution had a major flaw, and scientists of all different stripes were able to reproduce the results and come to the same conclusion, that person's work wouldn't be covered up by some evolutionist conspiracy. That person would have goddamn colleges named after him. The really famous scientists, the ones who go down in history, are the ones who revolutionize the accepted science of the time. Some major proponents of evolutionary theory would take a while to come around, most likely, but the scientific community as a whole would eventually agree that evolution was wrong. I should point out that this is not likely to happen. Evolution is an incredibly well-supported theory.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:11 am 
The General wrote:
Discarnate wrote:
The General wrote:
I still think the Great Flood story refers to the end of the ice age, though.

OK - on what do you base that?

1. it's the only flood to my knowledge that could be close to the one described in the bible.

2. numerous mythologies throughout the world mention a great flood.

First off, as Animal stated before, the end of the ice ages was not anything like the biblical record we just went through in bloody gory detail.

Next off - if you want to go into the mytholgical record, we can do that. Unfortunately for your side, what it'll prove is that the whole flood mythology is stolen - er, pardon, 'researched' from prior mythologies.

And no, I don't mean the Hebrew faith. Prior to THAT becoming codified.

-John


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:26 am 
Does that work with Native American and Asian mythologies too?
Even though the Native Americans migrated to the continent before the end of the ice age?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:27 am 
jeremiahsmith wrote:
If someone actually gave hard solid evidence that the current theory of evolution had a major flaw, and scientists of all different stripes were able to reproduce the results and come to the same conclusion, that person's work wouldn't be covered up by some evolutionist conspiracy. That person would have goddamn colleges named after him. The really famous scientists, the ones who go down in history, are the ones who revolutionize the accepted science of the time. Some major proponents of evolutionary theory would take a while to come around, most likely, but the scientific community as a whole would eventually agree that evolution was wrong. I should point out that this is not likely to happen. Evolution is an incredibly well-supported theory.


True, and good points.

The only thing I would point out is that historically most scientific revolutions tend to take a while to take hold. As in, usually when the proponents of the established framework/paradigm/theory have died/retired.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:30 am 
And/or been lynched by the Church.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:30 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Gerald wrote:
The only thing I would point out is that historically most scientific revolutions tend to take a while to take hold. As in, usually when the proponents of the established framework/paradigm/theory have died/retired.


Perhaps, but not always. Einstein was not a supporter of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle by any means, even when the rest of science was working on it.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:42 am 
If you do your research, you'll find that Native Americans had their own Flood story...that predated the settlement of the Americas.

Oh, and a question that I've never found a good answer for. The commandments state that:
1. Thou shalt have no other God before me.

Soooo, if the existence of the christian God is proven, does this mean that they'll have to accept the fact that it appears that even their Diety acknowledges the fact that there are other Dieties out there?

Anyway, back to the flood.

http://www.indians.org/welker/greatflo.htm

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/yellowst.htm

For a beginning...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:43 am 
Animal wrote:
DarthBaboon wrote:
Animal wrote:
jeremiahsmith wrote:
Creationism is science in the same way that my asshole is a quantum mechanics professor.


Well put.

Incidentally, the discussion of this over at talk.origins has been pretty spirited, too.


A little strong in languege, but the point is valid. Creationism, in a proper Christian scientist view, should have more to do with the interpretation of Evolutionary theory than the oposition of it. (See my response above)


Yeah, I'll go along with that.

So, what's your thinking on the current state of paleoanthropology?


I like to think of the first stories of the seven days as more metaphorical. Each day represents a much longer period of time. So in the same fashion, raising Adam from the dust could refer to the relative abruptness that humanity in intelligent form appeared. The driving out of Eden could be said to represent the immigration out of (Africa or the Fertile Crescent, whichever they are saying these days) into the desert.

Overall I like to remember that, while Moses probably received the true version, the Old Testament (and the New Testament to an extent) was first an oral history. Plus it is countless years old, which would naturally lead to some human error in translation over time.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:52 am 
kreely wrote:
Soooo, if the existence of the christian God is proven, does this mean that they'll have to accept the fact that it appears that even their Diety acknowledges the fact that there are other Dieties out there?


What are you talking about? That passage is refering to false gods, idols and the like. It doesn't say that there are other gods, it is refering to false gods.

And at least I don't see that as saying that anyone who worships in a diferent religion is dommed to hell (nor do I think athiests are either) but my reasoning is very complicated, so I won't go into it now. I see it to mean that you won't let other things be placed higher than God in your life (ie. TV, your job, grades, posting on web forums :wink: ). There is still the literal meaning of not worshiping other gods if you worship Him, but the metaphoric meaning is more useful in everyday life. It is a good reminder to take things in moderation.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:54 am 
On floods:

There is also a Greek story of a great flood, following soon after Pandora's Box.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:58 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
There are flood stories from every culture on the globe:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

You'll notice that they're all very different. (You'll also notice there are two different versions of the Noah story. 8-) )

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 139 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group