Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 12-02-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

So who back then would have thought of the appearance of light first, and then arrangement of land and sea and waters?

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:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caine

Electromagnetic radiation, including light, has no priority chronologically or otherwise over other forms of energy in current scientific understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjakey

Pretty much anyone who was writing the story. If "god" doesn't invent light first, how's he supposed to see what he is doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

Sorry but Lee Merrill got even what the Bible says was first wrong.

Quote:

"In the beginning God Created the heaven and the Earth.

"And the Earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

"And God said. Let there be light: and there was light."

yadda yadda yadda.

Reads to me like the claim here is that god, the heavens, Earth, darkness, and water came before light.

ETA:
At a minimum you would have to say that the sequence (according the the bible) was
1. Heavens
2. Earth
3. Water
4. Light
5. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

[replying to skepticalbip] True. Why is it that the very people who claim that a strict adherence to the Bible is required to save their everlasting souls don't actually seem to have a very accurate knowledge of this book? I've even seen such a person on these forums admit he hasn't read the book. If I thought adherence to such a work was required to keep me from everlasting punishment I'd know that thing by heart, backwards and forwards -- I'd be able to answer questions about it in my sleep. These folk --not so much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

But again, we are skipping over the correspondences, where every thread like this becomes immediately "look at all the difficulties!" This ignores the substantial correspondences as if they were not there, correspondences such as light first and inanimate to animate, such as forming dry ground and simple to complex life, and finally man.

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, what could he or anyone else possibly have to gain from his refusal to provide more evidence? If a God exists, he either is or is not trying to convince people to believe that he exists. Which is it? Logically, no God who wanted to convince people to believe that he exists would always be invisible, nor would any other being who wanted to convince people to believe that he exists.

lee_merrill · 12-02-2007, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

As far as 1), I mentioned that creation myths often start with what is complex being created first, a primal bird lays a primal egg, a primal god has children that become the sun and moon, the first man appears and then does the rest follows, and so on.

The fact is that creation myths often do *not* start that way, either. Your attempt to paint them all broadly with your description above does not work.

So, which myths did you have in mind, please?

Quote:

Finally, you have not addressed the numerous places where genesis simply gets it wrong.

That's been the whole content of this thread, actually. I've been trying to discuss correspondences, but folks seem to want to discuss problems, so I've been discussing them.

Quote:

I haven't seen any posts in this thread where you listed any correspondences in genesis.

Well, the opening post was intended as such.

Quote:

I didn't request survey of all major myths (at least not yet). I mentioned you doing proper evaluation of only three such myth stories.

Well, I could do that, today is going to be rather busy, but I think the reply would be "well, you can pick myths to make your point, but you need a comprehensive survey," and I would agree.

Quote:

Yet this thread contains numerous posts where people pointed out that you were wrong, or had failed to address some shortcoming in your argument. Why have you not corrected the arguments, then?

This would assume they won the point! Which point specifically, or which points, have I been refuted on?

Regards,
Lee

Sheshonq · 12-02-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

The fact is that creation myths often do *not* start that way, either. Your attempt to paint them all broadly with your description above does not work.

So, which myths did you have in mind, please?

For example, this page has a MicMac legend that does not start with humans as the first created.

Boshongo legend here also does not start with men first. The Fans legend as well.

In five minutes of searching I found three such legends. One would reasonably think that you should have invested at least five minutes before making your claim that genesis was special in this regard.

Quote:

That's been the whole content of this thread, actually.

Apparently it hasn't been. I cannot find any post where you specifically list the 'correspondences', and then demonstrate why they would be beyond the science that was available to the writers at that time.

If such a post(s) exists, feel free to provide link(s) to it (them).

Quote:

but folks seem to want to discuss problems, so I've been discussing them.

As well you should. Anyone who wants to claim credits for scientific accuracy also has to discuss debits for scientific mistakes.

Quote:

Well, the opening post was intended as such.

Was it?

The opening post lists several items, but they were all roundly refuted in the follow-up posts. Algae are not plants, the order of created items is wrong, atmosphere is not mentioned as being cleared, creeping things is more than just livestock, etc. etc. etc.

Maybe you're confused: I am asking for actual scientific correspondences. Not stretched and pleading attempts at making a 60% fuzzy match with some principle of science.

You'll also need to present some evidence that the science of the day was not up to the task. Is there a different post where you discussed the level of scientific understanding available to the Hebrews, so you could provide such a comparison?

Quote:

I didn't request survey of all major myths (at least not yet). I mentioned you doing proper evaluation of only three such myth stories.

Well, I could do that, today is going to be rather busy, but I think the reply would be "well, you can pick myths to make your point, but you need a comprehensive survey," and I would agree.

And I already short-circuited that problem by asking you for your criteria before you selected the myths. You deliberately deleted the second half of my paragraph:

Of course, I would expect you to list your selection criteria as well. You would also need to deal with counter-examples.

Your response of "I'm rather busy" juxtaposed against the fact that you deleted a key portion of my post doesn't put you in a very good light, lee_merrill.

Quote:

Yet this thread contains numerous posts where people pointed out that you were wrong, or had failed to address some shortcoming in your argument. Why have you not corrected the arguments, then?

This would assume they won the point! Which point specifically, or which points, have I been refuted on?

They won the point by forfeit, if nothing else, because you failed to rebut their arguments.

The order of created items is wrong.
Algae are not plants.
Birds before land animals.
Sun after plants.
"creeping things" is more than just livestock
The genesis text not does mention "clearing of the atmosphere"
Etc. etc. etc.

You try to paper over a lot of these problems by inserting "it could be that......" or "it is possible that....." But these are simply more assertions, stacked on top of an existing assertion. That is not a rebuttal; it is another claim that has to be supported.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-02-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

So who back then would have thought of the appearance of light first, and then arrangement of land and sea and waters?

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:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caine

Electromagnetic radiation, including light, has no priority chronologically or otherwise over other forms of energy in current scientific understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjakey

Pretty much anyone who was writing the story. If "god" doesn't invent light first, how's he supposed to see what he is doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

Sorry but Lee Merrill got even what the Bible says was first wrong.

Quote:

"In the beginning God Created the heaven and the Earth.

"And the Earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

"And God said. Let there be light: and there was light."

yadda yadda yadda.

Reads to me like the claim here is that god, the heavens, Earth, darkness, and water came before light.

ETA:
At a minimum you would have to say that the sequence (according the the bible) was
1. Heavens
2. Earth
3. Water
4. Light
5. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

[replying to skepticalbip] True. Why is it that the very people who claim that a strict adherence to the Bible is required to save their everlasting souls don't actually seem to have a very accurate knowledge of this book? I've even seen such a person on these forums admit he hasn't read the book. If I thought adherence to such a work was required to keep me from everlasting punishment I'd know that thing by heart, backwards and forwards -- I'd be able to answer questions about it in my sleep. These folk --not so much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

But again, we are skipping over the correspondences, where every thread like this becomes immediately "look at all the difficulties!" This ignores the substantial correspondences as if they were not there, correspondences such as light first and inanimate to animate, such as forming dry ground and simple to complex life, and finally man.

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?

Johnny Skeptic · 12-02-2007, 12:53 PM

Message to Lee Merrill: If the God of the Bible exists, what could he or anyone else possibly have to gain from his refusal to provide more evidence? If a God exists, he either is or is not trying to convince people to believe that he exists. Which is it? Logically, no God who wanted to convince people to believe that he exists would always be invisible. He would know that that could not possibly benefit him or anyone else. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it.

lee_merrill · 12-02-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

So, which myths did you have in mind, please?

For example, this page has a MicMac legend that does not start with humans as the first created.

Boshongo legend here also does not start with men first. The Fans legend as well.

But I said they tend to start with complex creation first, as I have seen, and so starting with first men was just one example.

Quote:

I cannot find any post where you specifically list the 'correspondences', and then demonstrate why they would be beyond the science that was available to the writers at that time.

Well, this shifts the goalposts. Now I must have a post with correspondences and the demonstration. But the demonstration I have tried to give in various posts throughout, whenever there is a little lull in discussing putative errors.

Quote:

Algae are not plants, the order of created items is wrong, atmosphere is not mentioned as being cleared, creeping things is more than just livestock, etc. etc. etc.

These items I addressed, how are my responses wrong? except I don't think the second one came up. Dividing the waters between the heavens and the earth was what I meant by the clearing of the atmosphere.

Quote:

I am asking for actual scientific correspondences. Not stretched and pleading attempts at making a 60% fuzzy match with some principle of science.

Well, call them what you will, this is my evidence.

Quote:

You'll also need to present some evidence that the science of the day was not up to the task.

Which again I deduce from other creation tales.

Quote:

Of course, I would expect you to list your selection criteria as well. You would also need to deal with counter-examples.

Your response of "I'm rather busy" juxtaposed against the fact that you deleted a key portion of my post doesn't put you in a very good light, lee_merrill.

You neglected my main point in reply, though.

Quote:

They won the point by forfeit, if nothing else, because you failed to rebut their arguments.

This seems to be an assumption of a conclusion, and not an argument, nor a listing of such.

Quote:

The order of created items is wrong.
Algae are not plants.
Birds before land animals.
Sun after plants.
"creeping things" is more than just livestock
The genesis text not does mention "clearing of the atmosphere"
Etc. etc. etc.

And these are more conclusions, what I need is for people to make posts that advance the discussion, and which respond to my last posts on these points.

lee_merrill · 12-02-2007, 01:20 PM

And Johnny, mere repetition is not discussion.

blastula · 12-02-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

I cannot find any post where you specifically list the 'correspondences', and then demonstrate why they would be beyond the science that was available to the writers at that time.

Well, this shifts the goalposts. Now I must have a post with correspondences and the demonstration. But the demonstration I have tried to give in various posts throughout, whenever there is a little lull in discussing putative errors.

What are you goal posts lee_merrill? If your goal doesn't include showing how Genesis included anything beyond the science of the time then any correspondences are meaningless, especially when you handwave away the non-correspondences.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-02-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

And Johnny, mere repetition is not discussion.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

So who back then would have thought of the appearance of light first, and then arrangement of land and sea and waters?

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:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caine

Electromagnetic radiation, including light, has no priority chronologically or otherwise over other forms of energy in current scientific understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjakey

Pretty much anyone who was writing the story. If "god" doesn't invent light first, how's he supposed to see what he is doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

Sorry but Lee Merrill got even what the Bible says was first wrong.

Quote:

"In the beginning God Created the heaven and the Earth.

"And the Earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

"And God said. Let there be light: and there was light."

yadda yadda yadda.

Reads to me like the claim here is that god, the heavens, Earth, darkness, and water came before light.

ETA:
At a minimum you would have to say that the sequence (according the the bible) was
1. Heavens
2. Earth
3. Water
4. Light
5. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

[replying to skepticalbip] True. Why is it that the very people who claim that a strict adherence to the Bible is required to save their everlasting souls don't actually seem to have a very accurate knowledge of this book? I've even seen such a person on these forums admit he hasn't read the book. If I thought adherence to such a work was required to keep me from everlasting punishment I'd know that thing by heart, backwards and forwards -- I'd be able to answer questions about it in my sleep. These folk --not so much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

But again, we are skipping over the correspondences, where every thread like this becomes immediately "look at all the difficulties!" This ignores the substantial correspondences as if they were not there, correspondences such as light first and inanimate to animate, such as forming dry ground and simple to complex life, and finally man.

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?

Johnny Skeptic · 12-02-2007, 01:58 PM

Message to Lee Merrill: Following is a reply to you that I made in another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is a given that it would always be up to humans to feed hungry people, to tell people about the Gospel message, to perform surgery on people, to build houses, and to do all other tangible things.

The issue of God's motives, and of every being's motives, is of paramount importance. It is not possible to reliably assess any being's character unless you first know what his motives are. After that, it is necessary to try to determine if his methods of achieving his agenda are sensible. If the God of the Bible's methods do not complement his agenda, he probably does not exist.

James says that if a man refuses to give food to hungry people, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Why do you believe that God inspired James to write that? If Jesus appeared to hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, why did he do it? If Jesus fed hungry people, why did he do it? If Jesus healed people, why did he do it? If God has predicted the future via Bible writers, why did he do it? Why didn't God spread the Gospel message himself? If God kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes why did he do it?

If you do not have any reasonable answers to those questions, you lose. Regarding character, motives and methods are everything.

It is interesting to note that no rational God would ever use written records as a primary source of communicating with humans. He would know that doing so would cause doubt and confusion, and would cause hatred and wars among believers over interpretation, and would cause skeptics to question authorship, eyewitnesses, lies, interpolations, and innocent but inaccurate revelations.

Historically, many millions of people died without ever reading a written record, and without ever meeting a person who had read a written record. Even today, there are natives who live in remote jungle regions who do not know how to read and write, and have never met a person who is able to read and write.

No matter what issue ever comes up, the God of the Bible never takes the easiest way out, always needlessly perferring to cause doubt and invite dissent.

You always avoid getting involved discussing issues that you know are difficult for you to discuss. A good example is your supposed miracle healings. You have stated that miracle healings are an important part of your belief system, but yet you always refuse to discuss them in detail. Why would God want to heal anyone? He certainly had never given an amputee a new limb, at least at far as we know. What does God have against amputees?
At the Evolution/Creation Forum, you said that you asked God to heal you of food poisoning. You did not provide any evidence that you had food poisoning, and that other people would have gotten sick if they had eaten what you ate. In many parts of the world, people eat fermented food that smells rotten, and sometimes tastes bad. Anyway, if you were an amputee, would you ask God to give you a new limb? If so, if God gave you a new limb, would you be surprised that you became the first well-documented case in history of God giving an amputee a new limb?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-02-2007, 12:53 PM	#85
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to Lee Merrill: If the God of the Bible exists, what could he or anyone else possibly have to gain from his refusal to provide more evidence? If a God exists, he either is or is not trying to convince people to believe that he exists. Which is it? Logically, no God who wanted to convince people to believe that he exists would always be invisible. He would know that that could not possibly benefit him or anyone else. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it.

12-02-2007, 01:20 PM	#87
lee_merrill Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,074	And Johnny, mere repetition is not discussion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.