The Creationist Myth - 500,000-Year-Old Stone Tools, Butchered Elephant Bones Found in Israel

a reply to: nenothtu

There is more accurate astronomy in Moby Dick than there is in the bible. But by all means, give me one, clear, unambiguous example of a rational, scientific insight into modern astronomy. Not vague verses, just get to the point.

a reply to: GetHyped

didn't you know ancient people knew astronomy?

originally posted by: undo
nenothu,

hey thanks for the support, even if you don't approve of my scientific approach. i just happen to view god as the premier scientist (and physician), so it doesn't bug me at all, to talk about it.

No reason in particular that I should have to approve of your approach - it's yours to work with, not mine. I understand the conflation of spirituality and science, I just don't happen to agree with it. My missus is similar, but from the opposite direction. She finds religion to be science, whereas the more modern approach is to take science as one's religion.

I just keep the two separate, so that I don't have to clean up the messes after the cage matches.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: nenothtu

There is more accurate astronomy in Moby Dick than there is in the bible. But by all means, give me one, clear, unambiguous example of a rational, scientific insight into modern astronomy. Not vague verses, just get to the point.

I suppose that's possible - I've not read Moby Dick, so I can't say whether that is so or not.

What is it you think astronomy IS? Who do you think invented it? Carl Sagan?

a reply to: nenothtu

But by all means, give me one, clear, unambiguous example of a rational, scientific insight into modern astronomy. Not vague verses, just get to the point.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Creationists will tell you that anything over 6,000 years old is put there by God to test their faith.

It's a ridiculous argument.

Generalization at it's finest. Ignorance DENIED.

I've said this before. I guess I'll say it again.

The bible was "written" to guide and teach a backward, ignorant society. It's been written by man. Re-written by man. Had parts taken out... by Man and then for the sake of it put back together BY MAN.

Raised and still am a Catholic. My views on the origins of life supersedes the Bible. The Bible is important. It's the ground work of today's society, whichever way you look at it.

People say you can't pick and choose the bible. But I think, sometimes, that's the only way you can make it work. People need to understand the Bible's purpose and it's original audience. We aren't those people anymore.

Faith is stronger.

Just to put one more idea into the mix, as a Christian, these types of stories have no faith related impact on me at all. In fact, I love stuff like this. I am a firm believer that mankind has had its 'chit together for thousands of years longer than we are given credit for.

On the fun hypothetical side, time should not be a huge issue for those of faith. God is not confined by time, so at best, everything to God is an incomprehensible 'now.'

If a creator took a billion years for anything, the length of time is not relevant. If the universe appears to work through a system of order and physics, than creation would take the time it had to take. No skin of God's nose.

I wonder how the builders of Gobekli Tepe would give me an amen?!?

-Lederman

a reply to: eisegesis

I'm not posting this as 'proof' that the bible is the Hitchhiker's guid by any means... but I do love it none the less. There is lot's of good discussion regarding the hebrew words used in this passage, it's an enjoyable study

"He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing"

Job 26:7

-Lederman

a reply to: GetHyped

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Xtrozero

the problem is, that's not what the text says. it doesn't say man became self aware suddenly, it says man became a procreator, a sexual being. why else would they suddenly notice each other's nudity? why not each other's freckles or some other aspect of being self aware? today we call those hormones. before they became procreative, sex didn't mean anything, as new male and female adam were copied in the image of elohim (plural, some were male, some were female) and so the physiology necessary for procreation, wasn't present, and therefore, naked meant nothing. the whole "eyes were opened" thing is not because they were blind before that, but because they didn't have sexual urges and so were not stimulated by each other's appearance. it all fits perfectly once you come to terms with it.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean, other than something like aliens were cloning man and at some point man became self replicating.

originally posted by: Develo

Actually, the study of the human genome shows it was created through natural evolution, not genetic engineering.

Our DNA goes back billions of years of connections, even grass is related to us. We are of earth, there is no other theory. I did post last week about that man's break from the chimp evolutionary line was mainly due to the fusion of chromosome 2, that for apes and monkeys it is chromosome 2a/2b. Here

The interesting part is what caused that fusion of chromosome 2 to truly split us into the sapiens evolutionary branch.

a reply to: Xtrozero

the fall narrative is when the adam males and females were given procreation (dna from the tree of knowledge). it's assumed this was a bad thing, because shortly thereafter god inexplicably gets mad that humans were procreating. i say inexplicably because earlier, he had told us to go forth, be fruitful and multiply, and now all of the sudden, he didn't want us to multiply (procreate). i think the reason for this sudden change of heart is that the god who created us and gave us the ability to procreate, is not the god who owns this planet. the god who owns this planet, is the bad guy, and he doesn't like humans all that much and didn't want us procreating. he just wanted clones, so he could control population growth. so the story is kinda flipped on its head. it almost seems like there's 2 different authors of the story, at the very least. one which is pro-enlil and one which is pro-enki.

in sumerian/akkadian stories of these same events, they elaborate that the earth had underwent a cataclysm, and everything had to be rebuilt and re-established. so what would be the equivalent of the first adam clones, were worked around the clock. re-establishing the mines, the food, the buildings and so on. however, the god (enlil) who owned the place, over worked the adam and they went on strike. he contacted our creator (enki) and asked him to solve the problem. well one of the problems was the sudden shortage of clones willing to work. so enki got the idea to give us the ability to clone ourselves (procreate) . enlil however, didn't like the solution and so demanded before the divine court, as seen in genesis, that our dna be modified so that our elohim full body regeneration (Tree of Life) was no longer functional. that is the fall narrative. if we were gonna procreate, so he had an endless supply of workers, he didn't want us to over populate his planet, so the "way to the tree of life" was blocked in our dna.

For the record Undo, this is exactly why I did not want to follow you in discussing that interpretation.

You talk about all this not like it's a possible interpretation out of many, and the one you prefer.

You talk like this is literally what happened and these texts are a proof of it.


This is not research, this is history re-writing.

a reply to: Develo

nope, i haven't re-wrote anything. it's all right in the texts. i did mention, however, that the sumerian version elaborates on the biblical version and it was written before the bible was.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

nope, i haven't re-wrote anything. it's all right in the texts. i did mention, however, that the sumerian version elaborates on the biblical version and it was written before the bible was.

So the Bible elaborates on the Sumerian Text, is what you're saying right???

for any who have read genesis, remember this?

Gen 2:11

The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;


Gen 2:12

And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

=

those verses about good gold, just suddenly come out of left field, as if a huge part of the text is simply not there.

a reply to: mOjOm

something like that

a reply to: undo

Well no, it either is or isn't what you were trying to say. Because it sounded like you were saying Sumerian Texts Elaborated on The Bible even though Sumerian Peoples were here before the Bible. This would be impossible since it would be a reverse of time and you can't elaborate on something that hasn't yet come into existence.

I don't know why you wrote it like that so I'm trying to figure it out. Does that help??

a reply to: mOjOm

ah well i think the habiru kept an oral record so it's kinda hard to say who really elaborated who and be totally accurate. i'm of the opinion that, even if the entire story is not present in the text of genesis, the biblical version is overall, superior to the mainstream sumerian/akkadian version (the one kept by the royals). so i prefer the biblical account, but refer to other ancient texts of that timeframe, such as sumerian, akkadian and egyptian texts, to help me understand things like genesis 2:12

a reply to: mOjOm

What is usually accepted is that the Sumerian mythology and beliefs inspired the Jews during their stay in Bablylonia. Maybe it's what Undo meant.