Sheshonq

Which doesn't address my point. The examples I listed do not start with complex creation first, however you define that to be.

Again: I found three examples in five minutes. You apparently never bothered to look beyond the handful of mythologies that were already known to you.


Nonsense. The goalposts were included in how you framed your original claim. They are *your* goalposts. You were the one who said that the correspondences were beyond the science available at that time. All I'm asking you for is some proof of what that level of science was.

You responded, but did not address them. Algae is not plants, the atmosphere did not contain water at the time (hence does not square with the genesis text), and "creeping things" still includes more items than just livestock.

Posting a response is not the same thing as addressing a point, lee_merrill.

I'm fully aware of what you meant. However, it was pointed out to you that at the early age of the earth, there were no "waters above" to be divided. You never rebutted that point. Which is an case example of how the rest of this thread progressed.

It is a selective quotation of genesis that has a 60% fuzzy match, and ignores the glaring disconnects.

It is not evidence.

However:

1. You haven't shown any mastery of more than 3 or 4 such creation tales - not enough to form any kind of meaningful "deduction";

2. You are ignoring *other* creation myths which *do* have a greater correspondence with science. So if you think creation tales are related to scientific level, then you need to revise your "deduction" to include these tales;

3. You skirt over the scientific mistakes in genesis - which shouldn't exist if the text were infallible;

4. Finally, you fail to account for hte fact that "scientific level" is not some static measurement. It is culturally and chronologically bound; some civilizations had higher levels of science than other ones did. And some timeframes in history were better at science than other ones were. Your 'one size fits all' approach is totally bogus.

Horsefeathers. I did not neglect it. You tried to claim a comprehensive survey of mythologies was needed. It certainly isn't. All that is needed is a representative sample. You're apparently trying to avoid the work of creating one, and accusing me of missing the point to distract the audience.

It is not a conclusion; there is a graveyard of your dead points in this very thread. You were cornered on multiple occasions, and left the thread without rebutting.

No, they are a summary of the mistakes in genesis. I am not the first to bring them up in this thread. But the points are still there, awaiting your rebuttal.

That has already been done in this thread. You abandoned the thread, and failed to rebut the points.

lee_merrill

I did not claim that all creation stories start with the complex first, however.

To which I point to what I consider trends in creation stories.

It still doesn't matter if algae are not scientific plants, for the Hebrew word is broader than the scientific classification. The atmosphere did not contain water? I missed that part, sorry, can you restate this reasoning? And yes "creeping things" does include more than livestock, I agree.

The disconnects I have not ignored, most of this thread is concerned with them. How did you compute 60%? may I ask.

Eh? which ones?

These disputations I have not ignored, most of this thread is concerned with them.

Certainly.

Well, I don't have the resources to do a representative survey, not having access to all myths, nor the timeframes of origin, so I give my idea, which does I believe show that people did not have unvarying views that corresponded to scientific knowledge today. This then is all I need to refute the claim that "well, of course people would think that."

Ah. Well.

Sheshonq

But that was one of the things you claimed was so amazing about genesis.

Now you're admitting that genesis isn't as unique or special as you originally stated, because there are other creation stories that start with simple and move to complex. You've backpedaled and your argument has lost ground.

Substituting your subjective gut feel for actual research? Not hardly. Your response is a handwave and a cop-out, because you're too lazy to do the prerequisite research to support your claim about the level of science available to the Hebrew writers.

As for trends - what trend? You have no trends here. Three examples do not a trend make, especially when you are ignoring other examples that show the trend moving in the opposite direction.

I'm afraid it does matter, because algae aren't plants at all. Moreover, you were challenged on your knowledge of Hebrew, and never responded. Until you do so, your claims about what the Hebrew text will or won't allow are just wishful thinking.

1. The rebuttal in the thread - which you missed - was that to separate the waters from above, from the waters below, there must be waters above. At the time in the earth's development, however, the temperatures did not allow for water in the high atmosphere.

2. You also failed to demonstrate the point in geologic history of the earth (what epoch/era / etc.) where you claim this allegedly took place. It is important to be specific.

3. Since you are using this "clearing" action as an excuse to explain the fact that the order of creation for earth, sun and moon is wrong in genesis, you'll also need to demonstrate that the density of the air was such that it obscured the sun and moon.

Good. Then roll back to this exchange and answer it:



1. The thread is concerned with asking questions about the disconnects. I have seen you answer very few of those questions, however.

2. The 60% figure was generous. In reality, there is almost nothing in genesis that correctly maps to science.

As soon as you finish working the bugs out of your genesis argument, including the missed correspondences and mistakes, then we can talk about other mythological systems. Of course, in order to do a real comparison, you will need to do what I said earlier:

I would expect you to list a handful (say, three) other creation myths, total up the number of correspondences to actual science that each myth demonstrated, and assign some kind of weighting to them.

No, the thread is concerned with asking about them. Not much in the way of actual answers has been provided by you, however.

So if you can acknowledge this, why can't you provide some kind of objective yardstick for measuring a culture's scientific expertise against its predominant creation myth? That's really what you need to do here.

And again with the false dilemma. I didn't ask you to have access to all myths or timeframes of origin. I asked you to provide three samples - not a hundred samples. You continue to mischaracterize the request and blow it out of proportion, so you won't have to actually do the work.

Your 'idea' shows nothing at all, lee -- you haven't backed it up, and you aren't answering questions from the audience about it. That's not an 'idea'; that's a sermon. No evidence needed.

Sadly wrong. Your idea is easily rebutted by saying, "of course people would think that." Why is it easy? Because:

1. your only response to the rebuttal is a biased reading of 3 creation stories out of thousands, and an unsubstantiated assumption about primitive ignorance of science;

2. but there are scientific mistakes in your favorite creation story which you haven't answered; and worse

3. there are counter-examples of other creation stories that do not follow your pattern of primitive ignorance, but you have conveniently decided not to deal with those examples

Merely calling your pet theory 'an idea' doesn't entitle it to rebut the valid point.

Sheshonq

That's the best and most to-the-point summary of the problems I've seen with lee's arguments so far.

Kudos to blastula. :wave:

Johnny Skeptic

What discussion? Mere handwaving is not discussion. You DID NOT directly reply to the following arguments that I have posted several times:

What is unusual about a Bible writer fantasizing that God created light before he created land? While working in the dark would not bother a God, it is reasonable to assume that the idea of God working in the dark did not appeal to the writer of the book of Genesis.

The following is from the Science and Skepticism Forum that you have refused to reply to:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=228702.

[quote=anthrosciguy] If you're making up a story, something has to come first. Seems to me that if you're making up a story about how everything got to where and how it is, you'd start with the non-material stuff like light, then go for the platform and scenery (the sky and earth and weather), then animals and plants. Isn't that how the story goes? You'd think, OTOH, that divine-obtained understanding would match what we've learned about the world, so that the ancient story would sound exactly like a modern (or even advanced to us) description of cosmology and evolution. Instead "God" sounds exactly like an ancient philosopher from a primitive farming culture -- why is that?

Well, your "light first" argument has already been demolished. What do you mean by "animate to inanimate?" What did God create that was inanimate before it became animate? Regarding simple to complex life, what is unusual about that? It would have been ridiculous for the writer to claim that animals were created before plants were created. What would the animals have eaten? What would Adam and Eve have eaten?

If the God of the Bible exists, why doesn't he show up in person and demonstrate that intelligent design exists?