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

a reply to: Develo

your thinking becomes disjointed when you discuss this topic.

yeah it's a big topic. it's easy to wander. there's a guy by the name of michael heiser who has a doctorate in ancient language studies. i refer to him when i'm having problems with some of intricacies in comparative language research, particularly in mesopotamia, where there were so many spelling variants (mostly due to the plethora of city-states).

not quite as easy with the rest of it, though i do occasionally encounter others who have done comparative research on ancient texts, particularly how they relate to ancient science and technology. i do find it a bit hard to believe you view it in such a dim light. is there some standardized version of pantheism?

a reply to: Develo

ah you snuck another edit in, this time about black holes being unobserved. erm, i think that's wrong. when you see a hubble photograph of a quasar or active galaxy, you are looking at a black hole in its active phase.

super massive black hole in the book of enoch



and current stars circling the super massive black hole in the milky way galaxy

a reply to: undo

Don't be so daft. Is your faith really that weak that you have to try and retrofit modern understandings of the universe with bronze age tales to give them more credibility?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: undo

Don't be so daft. Is your faith really that weak that you have to try and retrofit modern understandings of the universe with bronze age tales to give them more credibility?

it's full of science.

a reply to: undo

LOL!

There is nothing even remotely resembling our modern understanding of astrology in the bible. This is nothing more than the weak of faith trying to rationalize their unfounded beliefs.

Keep 'em coming, honey.

a reply to: GetHyped

well let me see:

-cloning of some kind
-space and sky travel
-artificial insemination
-cross-breeding
-alien invasion
-hybrid humans
-black holes
-references to a pre-adamic cataclysm
-dna modification (twice - probably more)

also found some cool stuff in the mahabharata.

a reply to: undo

Oh deary me. You are really reaching. Is the cognitive dissonance really that much for you? Ye of little faith, indeed.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: undo

Oh deary me. You are really reaching. Is the cognitive dissonance really that much for you? Ye of little faith, indeed.

so god's not scientific? and you know this how?
mwahaha.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: nenothtu

If us hillbillies are not so backwards, WHERE in the world are you guys running into these headcases? Especially in numbers that they would need to be "countered" with substandard evidence?

That's probably because YEC seem to be more of a New Age Christian Cult than the Old Age Christian Cult. No doubt your hillbilly brothers and sisters might also have some crazy superstitions and Religious theories but they are also usually much more traditional or conservative old school in their beliefs and haven't bothered to upgrade to the new version of insane Fundamentalism. Strict Literal Interpretations of the bible wasn't a very wide spread practice until recently. Historically most people had the understanding that Biblical stories were symbolic and/or metaphorical rather than literal.

There are scads of literalists and literalist denominations around here. The problem is that this "6000 year old Earth" cannot be sustained with a literalist approach, so they reject it out of hand.

In order for something to be taken literally, it must actually be present in a concrete enough form to be taken literally. This "Young Earth" business is not. It is based entirely upon assumptions, and literalists don't do assumption very well - at least the ones around here don't. Instead, rather than saying something that is not explicitly present in their bibles is "true" they say it is "unknowable" - the age of the Earth to them is not specified, and is therefore "unknowable" against biblical standards - their bible doesn't say, one way or the other.

When that is the case, and in the absence of specific biblical prohibitions against something (they ARE literalists, after all), they get their information on such subjects from other sources.

I think you're right, that it's the conservatism inherent in the area that causes that. "Literalist" and "fundamentalist" amount to the same thing here - they just take the bible as their foundation, the "fundament", and if something is not literally spelled out in it, then it's "unknowable" in biblical terms. There is no prohibition on gathering information from other sources if their bible is silent on the subject, but that information, and indeed even it's subject, are considered unimportant from a religious perspective. For example, the bible doesn't mention electricity, but no one here preaches against the existence or use of electricity from a religious perspective. It's not considered a religious matter, because their foundational documents are silent in the matter.

It doesn't help matters, though, that they have "advanced" from their original documentation (i.e. "The Geneva Bible") up to the "King James AV of 1611" and then got stuck there, 4 centuries behind the times. One of their current problems is that they fail to recognize their foundational documents were not written in Elizabethan English - or any other form of English. That, at least in this area, is a far worse bar to discussion than "Young Earth" doctrines.

The more "enlightened" Christian types here will readily admit that parts of their bible are literal and parts figurative or allegorical - they quote a verse somewhere in it that says something about "rightly dividing the word of God" in support of that position... which, perhaps oddly, is a literalist interpretation in support of a not strictly literalist position.

None of them, however, will look at a 500 foot road cut through a mountain and wonder how all those visible layers of rock were deposited and then warped in only 6000 years.

a reply to: nenothtu

The more "enlightened" Christian types here will readily admit that parts of their bible are literal and parts figurative or allegorical

But do they know which is which?

Can the average person really make that distinction or are these "enlightened" Christians also part of another minority?

Sorry for getting off on the wrong foot before. You came on a little strong, as did I in the OP. I admit, this was not the very most well thought out thread, but I am learning. I appreciate your well thought out posts.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: undo

LOL!

There is nothing even remotely resembling our modern understanding of astrology in the bible. This is nothing more than the weak of faith trying to rationalize their unfounded beliefs.

Keep 'em coming, honey.

Oh my.

You mention "our modern understanding of astrology", and try to somehow separate that from "faith", "rationalization", and "unfounded beliefs".

Do you understand what astrology is - "modern understanding" or not? If so, do you have some foundation for a belief in astrology that I've not ran across - perhaps a scientific basis for that belief system, since you want to differentiate it from "faith" and "unfounded belief"?

Contrary to your opinion here, the bible is chock full of astrology. I don't know if it's a "modern understanding" of astrology or not, but it IS astrology - the faith based belief that the stars somehow influence the lives of Earthlings.

Black holes, their existence, formation, appearance, or effects, have nothing at all to do with astrology. Those are astronomical matters, not astrological.

"Keep 'em coming, honey".

a reply to: nenothtu

It was a typo. It should be "astronomy". And no, there is no astronomy that has any reflection to reality in the bible. People trying to make vague passages relate to black holes, DNA, cloning, space travel or anything else are delusional.

a reply to: GetHyped

in the book of enoch (which isn't in the bible, btw), it says 200 watchers came down from the sky at mt hermon. then, they proceeded to abduct human females, because they were deemed to be "fit extensions". extensions of what?

a reply to: undo

Who cares? If this is your yardstick for credible, enlightened scientific information then it can mean whatever you please because by this point you're way past the deep end of irrationality and credulous thinking.

Good post and thread!

I believe in God, therefore, I must believe in some type of creation but I'm definitely in the corner of science. I believe the earth is billions of years old and in evolution and on and on. I can't take Genesis with a straight face. Ken Ham and his ilk make me sick...so much ignorance.

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: nenothtu

The more "enlightened" Christian types here will readily admit that parts of their bible are literal and parts figurative or allegorical

But do they know which is which?

Can the average person really make that distinction or are these "enlightened" Christians also part of another minority?

Well, that's where the rubber meets the road, isn't it? One man's "average" might be another's "radical". Considering the tiny sizes of the various "storefront churches" around here, I don't think that there is any group that isn't a religious minority - it appears to me to be more of a majority aggregate of minorities that can't really reach enough of a consensus to ever become an actual majority.

The "average" person isn't average, in other words. They all think they've got the right distinctions made, but there is no overarching consensus to affirm that conclusion - which, I suppose, is why there are so many denominations and religious splinter groups infighting one another. They can reach an agreement on some things, and fight bitterly over others... and I can't for the life of me, see the importance of what they fight over. To me, they mostly seem to be missing the important kernels of their thought by haggling over insignificant minutiae.

So yes, they have an agreement in general that there is a distinction to be made between "literal" and "allegorical"... but then devolve into pit-fighting over whether this or that passage fits into which category. It's entertaining to watch, but not very productive.

Sorry for getting off on the wrong foot before. You came on a little strong, as did I in the OP. I admit, this was not the very most well thought out thread, but I am learning. I appreciate your well thought out posts.

No problem, and no apologies necessary - I like a good knock down drag out as much as the next guy, when I'm in the mood for one. I freely admit that I came on a little strong - maybe a bit stronger than that - but that's my nature. I generally enter a fray by kicking over bar stools just to see who is gonna stand back up. It gets me noticed... but that ain't always a good thing! It almost invariably calms down after that introductory trading of blows.

Attempts to use science to either refute or support religious philosophy is one of my pet peeves. To my way of thinking, it's every bit as ridiculous coming from one direction as it is coming from the other. As Xtrozero has pointed out, they are not really the same thing - one asks and answers the question of "how?", and the other deals in "why?" with very little if any overlap. It's sort of like trying to explain the workings of internal combustion engines by mentioning that rainbows are composed of pretty colors - both have a basis in physics, but are worlds apart and entirely different, not bearing on one another at all, at their own respective levels. Likewise, one cannot explain the pretty colors in the rainbow by referring back to internal combustion engines - it's a two way street blocked in both directions.

Science can neither support nor refute a deity any more than a deity supports or refutes science. They are different realms of inquiry. They are only mutually exclusive in the minds of some - subjectively, not objectively.

Now, to be honest and forthright, archaeology and anthropology are only hobbies of mine. I was trained in astronomy, rather than the previously mentioned disciplines. Still, I recognize all of the above as scientific disciplines, and understand that as such none of then can answer the question "God?" - but neither does religion or philosophy answer the question "angular momentum?"

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: undo

Who cares? If this is your yardstick for credible, enlightened scientific information then it can mean whatever you please because by this point you're way past the deep end of irrationality and credulous thinking.

that's not the only time something comes down from the sky / goes up in the sky from the planet, in ancient texts, and it has a modern day precedent - namely ufo abductions. so far we have things flying in the sky, things landing on the planet from the sky, enoch seeing a super massive black hole, ezekiel witnessing a black hole opening in the sky above the earth, and flying metallic things come out of it, and so on.

in mahabharata (also not in the bible, it's a hindu text), there's a battle in flying machines above the planet. one of the flying contraptions actually engages a cloaking device and vanishes (it says after he does this, he begins to beat his enemies in a deceitful way (they can't see his ship to target it). but a ground based missile with the ability to track his cloaked ship is launched, and it seeks his ship out, pokes a hole right thru it, and continues on into the starry sky. the now decloaked and destroyed flying machine, crashes into the ocean.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: nenothtu

It was a typo. It should be "astronomy". And no, there is no astronomy that has any reflection to reality in the bible. People trying to make vague passages relate to black holes, DNA, cloning, space travel or anything else are delusional.

Negative, it was not a typo, it was a complete misidentification.

Of course there is astronomy reflecting reality in the bible! What a ridiculous statement!

I guess you would have to know the difference between the two to realize that, though.

Calling others "delusional" is usually just illustrative of what our own pet delusions are. We can be certain that your delusions are not like those other delusions because, well, "that guy" is delusional!

... but of course you are not... right?

How's that study of astrology as a science coming along?

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.