Still Crazy After All These Years: Creationists Keep Trying

Discussion in 'Spirituality & Religion' started by Dyvel, Dec 21, 2010.

  1. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    OK, well, I've already hit the issues surrounding justice in an earlier post (#1342).

    Here's a collection of historical and scientific errors I noticed, based on my limited knowledge of astronomy, anatomy, geology, oceanography, archaeology & anthropology:


    Genesis 1:6-8 says God separated the waters by placing an expanse (the heavens) between them. The sun and moon are located in the expanse (Genesis 1:14), not above it, suggesting outside of the solar system you will find a virtual sea of water.

    Genesis 3 tells us childbirth is painful not because the child’s head is larger than the birth canal, thereby requiring the woman’s pelvis literally be pushed apart during childbirth, but because Eve ate some fruit. Perhaps God’s original intent was that babies would be born after only seven months, with much smaller brains, or that women’s hips were to be much wider to allow for painless childbirth, like our cousins the chimpanzees. Now we see that all women are punished for the action of one woman, an action she would have been incapable of understanding the consequences of given her inability to discern good from evil.

    Genesis 4:16-22 explains the origins of cities, pastoralist societies, music, metallurgy and polygyny. We should not be surprised that the first city was built by an agriculturalist, although we can legitimately ask just how many people were living in this “city”? After all, the only people on earth are theoretically Adam, Eve, Cain and his family and the former two would not be living in this exile’s city. Also, contrary to archaeological evidence, the Stone Age was apparently short-lived, just seven generations, while the Bronze Age and Iron Age appear in the same generation according to this passage - not approximately two thousand years apart as archaeologists suggest.

    Based on the chronology presented in Genesis 5, and using Archbishop Ussher’s calculations for when creation occurred (and don't argue the calculations given we can work back from the Babylonian captivity and get a similar date), Noah’s Flood supposedly occurred in 2348 BCE, about 700 years after the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations started, about 200-300 years after the Great Pyramids in Egypt were built and roughly 600 years after Stonehenge began to take shape.

    Also, archaeologists have discovered skeletal remains from Jericho in Israel and many other locations from this time period. Not surprisingly the skeletons show no unusual signs of aging. Thus either cell degeneration was much slower back then, the ages and genealogy presented in Genesis are inaccurate, or the years should not be interpreted literally. The former suggests the laws of nature have altered with time, which would be highly problematic, while the latter raises an additional issue. Specifically, if the years should not be interpreted literally, then we must either rely on the assumption the genealogical record leaves out many generations, and therefore should not be taken literally, or we must assume the world is much younger than 6,000 years (which becomes really problematic).

    Regarding Genesis 6-9, there is absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood about 2348 BCE and all the geological and archaeological evidence contradicts it. For example, the Egyptian civilization began about 3000 BCE and continued unabated to 396 CE. Mesopotamian civilizations began about 3100 BCE and continued until Cyrus of Persia (not Darius) conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. If there had been a worldwide flood that killed all people, except those on the ark with Noah (and apparently the Nephilim), then both of those civilizations, and many other societies, should have ended.

    I should add archaeologists suggest ancient Israel evolved from the Canaanite culture, with no evidence of a cultural break from roughly 3000 BCE until the Babylonian captivity, yet the Bible suggests they were a completely separate culture that went on a conquering spree (Joshua and Judges), for which there is no evidence.

    Genesis 8:1 says the world is flooded above the highest mountains so Elohim sends a wind. When wind passes over water it creates waves; a persistent strong wind will cause very large waves. Without obstacles such as land, and with the persistent wind, the waves will simply go around the earth without stopping. That is, of course, assuming the earth is a sphere. However, if the earth were flat then a wind would be very helpful as it could blow the water off the sides. Ancient Near Eastern cultures believed the world was flat. Go figure.

    Genesis 8:10-11 implies the olive tree survived being submerged under water for at least 150 days (Genesis 8:3) and quickly grew new shoots. Impressive, but I am skeptical.

    Logically, if the flood story were true, for years after Noah’s flood everyone would still be speaking the same language: hence Genesis 11:1. Unfortunately, archaeologists have written records from both Sumer and Egypt dating between 3100 and 3000 BCE. The Sumerians wrote in cuneiform and the Egyptians in hieroglyphics, and they wrote in different languages. Therefore, approximately 800 or 900 years before the events in this story supposedly take place, we have hard evidence different languages already existed.

    Based on biblical chronologies Abraham would have lived about the 1900s BCE. However, camels weren't domesticated until roughly 1200 BCE and thus Abraham’s servant could not have delivered camels to Nahor. The term "pharaoh" would not be used until the mid 1300s BCE (Akhenaten was the first to use the title), yet the Genesis texts use it constantly and inappropriately beginning with Abraham. The Philistines, apparently an off-shoot of the Sea Peoples, would not occupy the Gaza region until the 1200s BCE, yet Genesis has them interacting with Abraham.

    In Genesis 42 it is difficult to imagine how Egypt and Canaan could be suffering droughts that affect both food supplies simultaneously, given that Egypt’s agricultural production was based on the flooding of the Nile, not rainfall in the Mediterranean region. The source of the Nile is thousands of miles to the south, in central Africa. While possible, the likelihood of there being prolonged lack of rainfall in the Mediterranean and thousands of miles away in more tropical central-Eastern Africa is rather slim.

    According to the biblical chronology, and using Archbishop Ussher’s estimate, Jacob did not arrive in Egypt until about 1768 BCE. Egypt did not have chariots until about the Second Intermediate Period, which would start about 100 years later. Genesis 46:29 can be considered a slight error that alone can be dismissed. However, as with chariots, horses did not arrive into Egypt until the Second Intermediate Period, having arrived with the Hyksos (who did possibly come from Canaan). Genesis 47:17 indicates it was the Egyptians themselves who had horses apparently even before the Israelites arrived.

    The amount of tax in Egypt varied year by year, based on the flooding of the Nile. When the Nile flooded high, more land was inundated and available for farming, thus taxes were higher. The reverse was true when the flood was low. Special stairways, Nilometers, were stationed along the Nile to measure the height of the flood and determine the amount of tax. The assertion in Genesis 47 that Egyptians paid a set rate of 20% in taxes during this time frame is wrong.

    Stay tuned for my comments on the other items.
     
    AfrcnHrbMan repped this.
  2. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    OK, here are some elements of possible polytheism and anthropomorphism consistent with Mesopotamian and other Near Eastern religions that I found in Genesis. Note that I am using the specific names for God found in the Hebrew, not the translations used in English. Enjoy!


    First, keep in mind that Mesopotamian religions consisted of multiple gods who created humans to cultivate their gardens, tried to destroy the problematic humans through drought, famine, plagues and flood, and were very anthropomorphic. The deities were male or female and could procreate with other gods or with humans.

    Genesis 1:26-27 indicates Elohim is the name of the deity involved in creation (the Bible translators render this name “God”). Elohim is a plural noun, but let’s leave that aside for the moment and treat it as a proper name. Notice the change of pronouns and the change from plural to singular in these passages. The last sentence in these verses begins: “And Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim he created him”. Notice it says “created him”, not “created them”. Males were created in Elohim’s own image. The last sentence continues: “male and female he created them”. When speaking of the female, there is no comment that Elohim made her in Elohim’s own image, for Elohim is a male. Now look at the first sentence: “Let us make man [humans] in our image”. Here Elohim speaks in the first person plural, not the first person singular. When Elohim is speaking on behalf of others, Elohim says they will make man (speaking about humanity) in their image but when Elohim is spoken of individually, only the male is made in Elohim’s image. It can be interpreted that the female was made in the image of a different god (or goddess). The text allows for a polytheistic interpretation of this passage consistent with findings from the archaeological record dating to about the 10th century BCE that provide evidence that the Hebrew god Jehovah (normally translated “the LORD”, not mentioned in this story) had a wife.

    Christian interpretations suggest being made in God’s image implies non-physical qualities, given the belief that God does not have a physical body. Thus, the image component is understood to be one or more unmentioned qualities, such as wisdom, morality, personality, etc. However, ancient societies of the biblical lands did believe the gods had physical bodies. The polytheistic/anthropomorphic reading solves the question of what it means for humans, and supposedly only humans, to be made in “God’s image”.

    The creation story in Genesis 2 is very similar to the Babylonian creation story in which the gods, tired of their agricultural labors, create humans to do the cultivating for them. Also similar to Mesopotamian religious belief is the presence of the “tree of life”. This symbol was widespread. Genesis 2 suggests God created the animals to find a helpmate for Adam. God creates them individually and brings them to Adam but deciding they are not appropriate helpmates. God’s apparent lack of omniscience is a bi-product of the need to explain how and why animals were created. The first creation story suggests animals were created after plants but before humans, while up to this point the second creation story only had Adam and plants living in God’s Eden.

    Genesis 3:8-9 has omniscient and omnipresent Jehovah-Elohim searching for Adam and Eve (or pretending not to know where they were). Note how 1) God walks, 2) God makes a sound when walking, and 3) God walks in the cool of the day. Is the afternoon sun too hot for God? I cannot say that I blame God for I too prefer cooler temperatures. Perhaps that is what it means to be made in God’s image! Some Christians may try to circumvent the problem by saying it was Jesus, God incarnate, who was walking around in the garden in the cool of the day. Perhaps, but it is also consistent with a culture in the ancient Near East having an anthropomorphic view of God, given that was the norm for that time and that region. No complex theological explanations needed.

    The combination of the two names for God used in Genesis 2 and 3 (Jehovah-Elohim) is reminiscent of how Amun-Ra in Egypt’s New Kingdom combined the two gods Amun and Ra. Ra came to prominence in the Old Kingdom when the capital of Egypt was in Memphis, located at the junction of Upper and Lower Egypt, not far from modern Cairo. Amun’s center of worship was in Luxor, far to the south. The combination of Amun and Ra created a national deity, in place of the localized ones, religiously uniting both Lower and Upper Egypt. Numerous Biblical scholars suggest, based on their biblical associations with various cities and events, Elohim was associated with northern Israel (the Kingdom of Israel), while Jehovah with southern Israel (Judah). If true, the combination of Jehovah-Elohim created a national deity for the Hebrews, just as Amun-Ra did for Egypt.

    Genesis 6:1-4 indicates Elohim had sons. I previously interpreted the passage to mean “angels” but the text does not read “angels” or “spirits”, it reads “the sons of Elohim”. This is consistent with a polytheistic worldview; many ancient societies believed the gods could have offspring that lived on earth, such as Hercules in ancient Greece.

    Notice that Jehovah is the deity in both Genesis 8:20-21 and Genesis 4, the story of Cain and Abel. From Genesis 8:20-21 we have a reason for why Jehovah did not like Cain’s offering: it did not smell good because it was not burning flesh. God, supposedly a spirit, should not need to eat unless Elohim and Jehovah were anthropomorphic beings similar to the Mesopotamian gods that needed people to cultivate their gardens, just as Jehovah-Elohim apparently did in Genesis 2. We are created in their image, after all.

    The Babylonian similarities suggest these sections were written after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, when Israelite leaders were moved to Babylon. It is there that they would have gained an intimate knowledge of the Babylonian stories and ended up integrating the stories into their own texts. It also explains why a single national deity would have been created from the two deities, given that traditions of both Judah and Israel would have been carried with them to Babylon.

    Genesis 11:5-8 suggests Jehovah does not like it when people live in harmony and work together to achieve great things. We see Jehovah’s anthropomorphism in this passage: Jehovah came down to see the city and tower. Could Jehovah not see it from where Jehovah dwelt, or did Jehovah just need a closer view? Possible polytheism sneaks in again as well. Notice how Jehovah went with others to view the city: “let us go down”. Once again Jehovah does not come across as a great omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent being but rather more anthropomorphic and possibly one of many gods.

    In Genesis 15:7-17 we learn how God cooks his meat and that God has a hearty appetite. God is pretty specific about the meat’s preferred age and apparently not too keen on veal. This anthropomorphic, carnivorous god is a far cry from the god portrayed in American Christianity.

    As I look afresh at Genesis 18:1-14 it reads as if God, along with two others (based on Genesis 19:1), is physically visiting and conversing with Abraham. After all, God is the one saying: “I will return to you, at this time next year”. A conservative biblical commentary I consulted argues it was God incarnate, Jesus, visiting earth about two thousand years before he would be born to Mary. This is a convenient way to explain away an anthropomorphic deity to people who believe God is not a corporeal entity. However, once again I find the much simpler solution being the ancient Israelites had an anthropomorphic deity. Regardless, at least we now know that God also takes walks in the heat of day.

    Genesis 18:16-21 once again implies God is not omniscient. God heard rumors of Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin and is now on route to find out if the rumors are true. An omniscient deity would already know the answer and would not need to visit the cities to determine if the rumors are true. Once again this passage is consistent with an anthropomorphic god similar to those of other Near Eastern cultures.

    Genesis 32 once again has Elohim appear as a physical man, this time unable to physically overpower a mortal man. So much for omnipotence!

    One more post to come focusing on authorship.
     
    AfrcnHrbMan repped this.
  3. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    And, with apologies for the lengths of these posts, here is one that focuses on issues related to authorship.

    In Genesis 1 Elohim creates plants before creating humans while in Genesis 2 Jehovah-Elohim creates man first (not simultaneously with woman). Biblical scholars note the different names for God that are used in the Hebrew text in the two creation stories, signifying different authorship. The first story solely uses Elohim while the second story combines Elohim with another personal name for God Jehovah. (Discussed in my previous post). Different names for God suggest different literary sources.

    In Genesis 6 the supposed lifespan limitation of humans is to be 120 years. In the chapters that take place after the flood we do not see this happening: people still live for several hundred years for at least 12 generations. But notice how the text switches between Elohim and Jehovah in Genesis 6:1-4. It is Jehovah that limits the age of humans, not Elohim. Future passages that have people living for much longer than 120 years likely come from sources that use Elohim as the name for God, not Jehovah.

    Also note in Genesis 6:1-4 the discussion of the mysterious Nephilim, apparently super-human individuals. Oddly, the passage says they survive the flood despite not being on Noah’s ark and God destroying all life save that which was on the ark. Curious that. But then, they were the sons of Elohim so perhaps they “rose” up to the heavens to wait until the Earth dried out.

    Genesis 6:19-20 and 7:2-3 have differing numbers for the animals on board the ark. When I first read biblical scholars suggesting the Torah had been written by different authors at different periods, I put it to the test. Recognizing the flood account included repetitions and used two different names for God, I separated those that use Elohim from those that use Jehovah. The result transformed my understanding of the Bible. Two distinct accounts appeared containing conflicting information and written in very different styles: one was analytical, the other very poetic (and actually quite awesome). The poetic account is very similar to the Babylonian account in the Gilgamesh Epic.

    What is with talking in the third person at the end of Genesis 9:3-6? Elohim consistently uses the personal pronoun “I” when speaking, except when discussing humans being made in Elohim’s image. Suddenly we read “in the image of Elohim”, not “in my image”, and “he made man”, not “I made man”. It almost appears as if the author forgot it was Elohim speaking or that Elohim is supposed to be the only deity. Refer back to my about how the personal pronouns and voice changed there as well when discussing the creation of humans.

    Genesis 10 is one of those chapters many people skim or skip because of all the names mentioned. The purpose of the chapter is to provide the genealogy for all the tribes and countries known to the ancient Israelites. However, Genesis 10:6-12 gives us a clue as to when the text was written. Babel, which is another name for Babylon, Erech (Uruk) and Accad (Akkad) were all important in Mesopotamian history. Uruk was the world’s first city, dating back to about 4000 BCE (long before the supposed flood), and was of central importance to the Sumerian civilization. Babylon and Accad were both capitals of great civilizations. The Babylonian civilization flourished about the 1800-1700s BCE and then again in the 700-500s BCE. The Akkadian Empire is recognized as the world’s first empire, under the reign of Sargon from 2334-2279 BCE (Sargon's childhood was ripped off by the Hebrews and given to Moses), and its language was an important diplomatic language for at least 1,000 more years afterward. With the mention of these three cities we have reference to three of the four great Mesopotamian civilizations: Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian. The remaining great Mesopotamian civilization is mentioned immediately afterward.

    Assyria, like Babylon, had two periods of domination. The first was shortly after the Akkadian empire fell, while the second was from 911 - 612 BCE. The original capital of Assyria was Ashur (Assur), hence the name of the civilization. However, it was during the second period that Ninevah became the capital of the Assyrian empire. As a result, it becomes clear this passage was written during Assyria’s second period of prominence. Had it been written earlier the author would surely have used the capital at the time, as was done for the other three great Mesopotamian civilizations.

    Genesis 10:15-19 is another list of names but with a twist. The other genealogies, those for Shem, Japheth and the other sons of Ham provide proper names of individuals, while most of the descendants of Canaan are listed as tribes. The two exceptions, Sidon and Heth, represent the Phoenicians and Hittites, respectively. The Phoenicians, who gave us the alphabet, were great seafarers and established colonies as far away as France, including the modern city of Marseille, Spain and Tunisia. The text possibly references this when it states “afterward the families of the Canaanite were spread abroad”. Importantly, they became prominent traders beginning about 1000 BCE. As such, we have additional confirmation the author(s) lived after this time, probably after Hebrew became a written language with the advent of the alphabet; the Hebrew alphabet derived directly from the Phoenicians, probably in the decades surrounding 950 BCE. Yes, other related Near Eastern languages had previously been written down in cuneiform but to my knowledge Hebrew was not one of them. Meanwhile, the first Hittite civilization was prominent until about 1180 BCE. However, there was a resurgence in the 900s BCE with the rise of Neo-Hittite, or Syro-Hittite states. Thus, the two exceptions are both societies with state-level political organization, not tribes.

    Genesis 12 is the first of two times that Abram (Abraham) tells a ruler that Sarai (Sarah) is his sister to save his own skin. The second occurs in Genesis 20. In Genesis 12 it is Jehovah who takes vengeance upon the unnamed Pharaoh for Abram deceiving and thereby allowing him to bring Sarai into his court, while in Genesis 20 it is Elohim who goes after the king of the Philistines (but note that Jehovah briefly pops into the story as well, see below). Remember, “pharaoh” was not the term used for kings of this period and the Philistines had not yet settled in this region.

    In Genesis 17 Abraham apparently did not realize that his ancestor Shem was 100 years old when his son was born (and let us not forget Abraham’s father was 70 when Abraham was born). Abraham is incredulous that a man 100 years old could father children, despite this being rather the norm, at least according to Genesis 5. Meanwhile, slave-owning, and slave mistreating, Sarah has apparently won favor in Jehovah’s sight, despite encouraging her husband to commit adultery, so now Jehovah will bless her with a child. Good for her!

    While reading Genesis 20 let us not forget that Sarah claimed she is too old for children, now that she is in her 90s, and that Abraham apparently did not learn from his encounter with the “Pharaoh” in Egypt (Genesis 12) leading him to repeat his mistake. Sarah must have been really attractive to have kings want to marry her when she is in her 90s and too old to have children! Meanwhile, it is interesting that despite Elohim being the deity focused on in this story, “Jehovah had closed fast all the wombs” of Abimelech’s wife and maids but “Elohim healed Abimelech and his wife and his maids”. Could be a little editing error or insertion when they put everything together into one volume.

    From our standards Abraham dying at 175 years would be “a ripe old age” (Genesis 25:7-8) but, based on Abraham’s ancestors, he died a spring chicken. Only Nahor, Abraham’s grandfather, had a shorter life, dying at 148 years old (Genesis 11:25). Remember when Jehovah said he would set human life at 120 years? Yeah, not so much.

    Genesis 35:9-15 discusses the second time Elohim renames Jacob “Israel”. The use of “then” at the start of the passage places the events surrounding Dinah chronologically between the two separate occasions, the earlier at Peniel and the latter at Bethel. As such, it is not a retelling of the first time Elohim changed Jacob’s name and thus reinforces the view that the Torah was not written by a single author but instead is a collection of stories written by multiple authors.

    Remember the Egyptian ruler was not called “Pharaoh” until Akhenaten in the middle 1300s BCE. Based on biblical chronologies Genesis 37 happened several hundred years before Akhenaten ruled. Note how in neither Genesis 12 nor Genesis 37 is a specific Pharaoh named. The first named Egyptian ruler in the Bible is Necho, who reigned about 925 BCE, shortly after the time Hebrew became a written language. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    There you go. Just some of my observations on Genesis.
     
    AfrcnHrbMan, dapip and ceezmad repped this.
  4. crazypete13

    crazypete13 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 7, 2007
    A walk from BMO
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Jerry Bergman appears to be a common idiot who is arguing with scientists from the nineteenth century instead of looking for any modern scholarly evidence to refute which Google seems to point to in abundance.
     
    Justin Z repped this.
  5. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France

    I make a habit of reading creationists' credentials. Jerry Bergman's does not disappoint, starting with his bio at the end of the article you posted.

    I was graduated too but I don't got me no 9 college degrees. :D

    Apparently one of his degrees, a PhD in Human Biology source, was from a non-accredited and, shortly after he was graduated, ordered-by-the-courts-to-be-shut-down "university" (Columbia Pacific). (source)

    Wikipedia highlights how dodgy PhD's from that school were

    Really makes you wonder about the quality of his education. But then, this is a common issue with creationists.

    He was also denied tenure when he claimed to have a degree in Psychology but could not demonstrate it (he went to court over the denial of tenure and the courts ruled against him because of his demonstrated fraud relating to his claimed degree). source
     
    Auriaprottu, AfrcnHrbMan and dapip repped this.
  6. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Your idea of proof is totally different, so no, there is nothing anyone can give you that you would be willing to admit as proof.
     
  7. AfrcnHrbMan

    AfrcnHrbMan Member

    Jun 14, 2004
    Philly
    Club:
    Olympique Lyonnais
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    Any thoughts from Stilton on this Bergman fella being a fraud?
     
  8. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    God has different names. Jehovah and its many variants, Elohim, El Elyon, El Shaddai, Adonai, all of which are different aspects of the Godhead. I quite understand how someone might decide that using different names of God means that the author was different in separate cases, but that's not a sure thing. The problem with that interpretation is that it ignores the fact that God isn't simply the creator or the judge or the provider or the all-sufficient one. He is all of those things, and more, so calling him Jehovah points to one aspect of his being and calling him El Shaddai points to a different aspect.

    Elohim is plural, as you know, so its use points to the triune nature of the Godhead.

    Genesis 2 is not intended to be a sequential account of creation. It treats upon the introduction of Man into God's creation and how that plays a part in the unraveling of God's original plan. Verse 1 establishes the fact that creation has been accomplished. The following verses are not in conflict w/ Gen. 1 because they are describing a different set of circumstances. You have to be dim-witted not to grasp that.

    Gen. 7:2-3 is more specific than Gen. 6. There are 3 pairs of clean animals, because those are to be eaten by the surviving population, as it grows, plus one, probably male, probably to be sacrificed, probably soon after the flood ends. The unclean animals, not to be eaten, are only one pair.

    wrong interpretation...

    God limited the lifespan of Man before the flood because of man's wickedness. After the flood, people lived longer.

    Do you need to know the specific consequences of a proscribed act to be clear that it is proscribed? Is it not enough to be told: "Don't eat the fruit of such and such tree"?

    There are a couple of differing views of early Man. One view is that God breathed his spirit into what was (to become) Homo sapiens sapiens, the successor to the being that we commonly refer to as Homo neanderthalensis, but a minority of scientists call Homo sapiens neandertalensis.

    This view depends on an interpretation of the word "day" in Genesis as being other than a 24 hour period. This is possible because the word "day" does not only mean a span of 24 hours.

    So, Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age? Did these precede Adam and Eve? Impossible to determine.
     
  9. luftmensch

    luftmensch Member+

    May 4, 2006
    Petaluma
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're kind of reminding me of a pre-Copernican astronomer layering epicycles upon epicycles in order to explain planetary motion within the bounds of the theory you've already decided just has to be true.
     
  10. AfrcnHrbMan

    AfrcnHrbMan Member

    Jun 14, 2004
    Philly
    Club:
    Olympique Lyonnais
    Nat'l Team:
    France
  11. Dyvel

    Dyvel Member+

    Jul 24, 1999
    The dog end of a day gone by
    Club:
    Leeds United AFC
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
    That's creationism in a nutshell, isn't it? It's a box in which all evidence must made to fit. There can not be any other explanation.
     
    Justin Z and Sounders78 repped this.
  12. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No contradictions though.

    Been away for a while. Thanks for covering the legwork, guys. ;)
     
  13. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    OOPS!

    Four-legged fossil snake is a world first

    Nice editor's summary from the linked scientific article:

    "It may surprise you to learn that snakes, like us, are tetrapods derived from an ancient four-legged ancestor. Martill et al. describe a fossil from the Brazilian Cretaceous period that contains a snakelike species that is elongate and serpentine, with both hind- and forelimbs (see the Perspective by Evans). This species appears to have been a burrower and shows clearly the early transitional stages from a lizardlike body plan to the smooth legless snakes we know today."
     
    Dyvel repped this.
  14. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The devil planted that ;)
     
    dapip, AfrcnHrbMan and Justin Z repped this.
  15. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    and you remind me of someone essentially closed-minded to the fact that there are manifold problems with a naturalistic explanation of the origins of all we know, so you find it incomprehensible that you might be wrong.

    what is most stunning is that many people who fall within your camp are willing to accept at face value the idea that there are dozens or hundreds of unexplained contradictions in Scripture without, in many cases, studying it. the Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 apparent contradiction is a prime example.

    if you think there are contradictions it's because you don't understand the point of the narrative. it's just that simple.
     
  16. Pønch

    Pønch Saprissista

    Aug 23, 2006
    Donde siempre
    It sounds to me like for an omnipotent being, god did a pretty shitty job at conveying his holy message to the masses. I mean, you would think it shouldn't be that hard for somebody that created all there is in a week to dictate all this stuff clearly so there wouldn't be a need to study scripture in order to understand the point of the narrative...
     
    Justin Z and dapip repped this.
  17. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    you can read. how wonderful for you.
     
  18. Pønch

    Pønch Saprissista

    Aug 23, 2006
    Donde siempre
    I can also think and make my own mind based on tangible, falsifiable proof. Can you say the same?
     
    Justin Z repped this.
  19. luftmensch

    luftmensch Member+

    May 4, 2006
    Petaluma
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Interesting that you assume so much about what I believe from just one post that revealed absolutely nothing.
     
  20. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    If we're going to be making such sweeping assumptions, I'll come back with one.

    You don't understand the Bible. There is no overriding narrative intended by the original authors as it is simply an amalgamation of various myths and oral traditions, embellished with fictions, half-truths and propaganda. The only narrative is one that has been concocted over the centuries by application of lingusitic contortionism and confirmation bias. Said narrative is so clear that there are a myriad of different Christian denominations who interpret key sections of the Bible in a myriad of different ways.
     
    Justin Z, Sounders78, dapip and 2 others repped this.
  21. song219

    song219 BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 5, 2004
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Vanuatu
  22. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    #1372 argentine soccer fan, Aug 1, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2015

    I don't know. Maybe somebody is trying to discourage tourists from visiting the sun? Works for me.
     
  23. song219

    song219 BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 5, 2004
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Vanuatu
    The Sun Tourism Commission should sue.
     
  24. luftmensch

    luftmensch Member+

    May 4, 2006
    Petaluma
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  25. song219

    song219 BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 5, 2004
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Vanuatu
    I guess there are so many of them someone proselytizing doesn't really have to target.
     
    luftmensch repped this.

Share This Page