The Age of the Universe

[Teg]

wrote of what we know as dragons. So mabey our idea of a dragon is mythical in all it's abilitys, like breathing fire...but perhaps they got that figure from a real existing creature.

I doubt that such a creature existed. That is not say that the argument has no weight. Two cultures invented such a creature presumably without the seed of the other. The problem lies in fossil records and inconsistancies. There were only comical renderings of the creature. We must also view it in the context. Egypt, Mezo-America, and many other cultures also had fantastic creatures. None of these creatures have been found in any form. The dragon seems to fall into the same category.

there are no factorys known to man where they can secretly manufacture all those giant bones

That sounds like something Tony1 would invent.

I agree the journey is 99.9% of the point. It is the texture of our lives. If we were born with all the answers what would we do but stagnate.

Well put. Omniscience=boring. Also remember that our lives are short for the same reason (well that and the need for the human race to adapt through new generations, but that is off the point).

 

[Taken]

Another interesting note on the creation in Genesis...for you science fans...

In the book of Genesis when we read "God said" In the Hebrew text it carries both the incomplete and complete forms of the verb. It is a sustained or a repeated action which does not come to it's completion.

Once again lending credibility to the fact that Moses was not describing a "poof" instantaneously finished, stagnate, and unchanging creation.

 

[Bambi]

Taken,

I apologize for taking so long to respond; I'm usually posting from work and I had a very intense week.

Your second post, IMHO, was head and shoulders above your first. Yes, here we can actually see some similarities.

Now, perhaps we can discuss the potential sources of such similarities.

1) earth from water
This one's pretty obscure. Although I imagine it would come naturally in any culture that lives in the basin of a river prone to frequent flooding (where the water routinely resculpts and replenishes the land.) Note that most ancient civilizations thrived precisely in such periodically flooded river basins.

2) man from dirt (or dust)
This one's way too obvious. When men die, they turn into dirt. When we eat things (including people, for cannibals), what comes out the other end is dirt. Plants grow from dirt; people grow from plants. So this one's just common sense based on simple observations. Stone-age science, if you will.

3) order from chaos
This one's easy too. Since the world is orderly, it's natural to presuppose that before the world existed there was chaos. Stone-age logic, if you will.

4) Yoruba myth (and others in Africa, west Asia, and southeast Europe)
These regions have been under Muslim influence for the last 1500 years. Christian influence for 500 years before that. It is hardly surprising to see transfer of information between native African religions and local brands of Islam.

5) Creator walking the earth, planting gardens
What more simplistic explanation could there arise for the Earth's vegetation amongst agriculturally aware nations?

6) Snakes, spiders, predators, disease = evil spirits
Very common, and very obvious. Evil is just an umbrella term for danger, harm, pain, suffering, death. No ancient religion would omit an explanation of evil from its fundamental dogma. Since the ancients weren't very well skilled in causal analysis, the most "natural" causative agent to invent was always anthropomorphic (i.e. conscious, deliberate) -- which of course extends even as far as the original Creator character.

7) soul=spirit=breath
Also very common. Most primitive cultures considered the beating heart or the breathing lungs to be the locus of or the source of or the epitome of life. Hardly surprising, since either of these are dead giveaways of whether an animal is alive or not.

Now, aside from convergent myths driven by the environment and the common folk psychology, we also have to consider migration of myths along trade routes (e.g. the Silk Route), with peremptory hunter/gatherer tribes (plenty of those on any continent), and through military conquests (frequent enough in the ancient world.)

The basic claim is that all religions are of entirely human origin (nothing supernatural envolved.)

But unless I'm badly mistaken, your thesis is that such religious commonality is not humanly but derived from some superhuman source. Naturally, you have my sincerest skepticism -- as I see nothing to point toward such an explanation in preference to the down-to-earth alternatives.

On the other hand, let's consider the correspondence between myth and fact.

1) Earth was formed before there ever was any water
2) Man was not created from dirt or dust, but biologically descended from other precursor animals
3) The Earth and the solar system formed just like any other solar system or planet -- entirely by themselves and with no evidence of any intervention from any intelligence.
4) ditto emergence and history of life on Earth

So not only are the various religions of human origin, but they are also wrong -- even in those very myths that they share. Which is, of course, not surprising considering that the religious myths are just wild guesses of rather ignorant peoples.

 

[Bambi]

Oh by the way, the Biblical "behemoth" is a hippopotamus. I thought that would be pretty obvious, given the locality of the original Jews.

 

[Asguard]

sorry i don't have time to read all the messages but the cathloc church say that the early stories of the bible are ment to explanine vast concepts to people who didn't have benifit of moden science

oh and bambi i wonder what our desendents will say about our views

 

[Hoth]

Originally posted by Teg
Well put. Omniscience=boring.

That's why I'd say if God were capable of existing, he would've committed suicide to escape from the infinite boredom.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Taken
Im used to most thiest disagreeing with me, after all I do live in the Bible belt. *

No doubt.
You spend so little time studying the Bible and so much studying everything else, that you rarely speak or write in agreement with the Bible.

*Originally posted by Bambi
All of which makes me wonder: is there any limit at all to the lengths you will go in apologizing for the genesis account?*

From what I've seen, no.

*Originally posted by Taken
As for the six "days" or eras...why didn't God just say "poof"...make it all in one big bang and be done with it? Why is it divided in to six periods of time, and each one representing the production of something different? *

Reason #1. To completely confuse you.

Let them all be confounded and turned back that hate Zion.
(Psalms 129:5, KJV).

*Originally posted by Bambi
Just about the only thing in common that they have is that they say the world-as-we-know-it didn't use to be there, and then it came to be in some imaginative (but entirely stone-age) way.*

Just out of curiosity, what is your modern, up-to-date, scientific creation myth?

*Originally posted by Taken
In 1789, Bligh recounted that the Tahitians believed...*

If you knew the Bible as well as Bligh's diary, you'd be much better off.

*Christians, more over Jews, were not the first people to believe in the creation of the earth by chaos from water by a supreame being and man being made from mud.*

Duh.
Christians didn't exist until 2000 years ago.
Jews didn't exist until about 3500 years ago.

Perhaps you weren't aware that neither Adam nor Eve were Christians or Jews.
Neither was Abraham.

*Originally posted by Bambi
As for the "order of creation", I should think it obvious even to a person with stone age knowledge that man in absense of anything else is a little weird. Seeing how everything comes from the earth and returns to the earth, one can only conclude that the earth comes first. *

Which is how the creation account describes it.

*Originally posted by Teg
I have said it before you are do not flow with the same theists that I have heard from, such as the infamous Tony1.*

Thanks.
That's more of a compliment to me than you realize.

*Originally posted by Taken
...6 exact 24hour days. They have boxed themselves right in to that corner based on not even the Biblical text*

Even in Hebrew, it refers to morning and evening.
As usual, you don't care the least for what the Bible says; you just like to "hear" yourself talk.

*DAY from Genesis. We simply have no word that encompasses the intention and implication of the Hebrew word used there. *

Luckily, we DO have words the encompass "evening" and "morning."

*If we were born with all the answers what would we do but stagnate.*

I think you'd figure out a way to stagnate no matter what.

*Originally posted by Bambi
On the other hand, let's consider the correspondence between myth and fact.

1) Earth was formed before there ever was any water
2) Man was not created from dirt or dust, but biologically descended from other precursor animals
3) The Earth and the solar system formed just like any other solar system or planet -- entirely by themselves and with no evidence of any intervention from any intelligence.
4) ditto emergence and history of life on Earth *

Thanks for the myths, but where are the corresponding facts?

*the Biblical "behemoth" is a hippopotamus. I thought that would be pretty obvious*

He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
(Job 40:17, KJV).

What hippopotamus has a tail like a tree?

 

[John Como]

Right on, Bambi

I agree 110% with your observations, Bambi, especially reference to the religious myths shared by the needy), as evidenced by ignorant rebuttals from the Tony1's of the world. Peace and goodwill.

 

[tony1]

Re: Right on, Bambi

*Originally posted by John Como
I agree 110% with your observations, Bambi, especially reference to the religious myths shared by the needy)*

I'm not needy.

*as evidenced by ignorant rebuttals from the Tony1's of the world.*

Glad to see you're back.
So far though, your pro-atheist argument appears to be limited to "religion sux, atheism roolz," however, I'm hoping for some more solid arguments along the lines of, say, Cris' or Bambi's.

*Peace and goodwill. *

An odd thing for an atheist to say, since you don't have any.

 

[Asguard]

Bambi
Are we all really simple minded enough that we belive that the world is flat - opps thats proven wrong
what eles will well we prove false in the future

Im don't know who said it but "the earth was made with no mystical interferance" well maybe the earth but who or what dicided to start the big bang

To me that would have to be the logical place to start looking for mystical interferance

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by tony1

*Originally posted by Bambi
Just about the only thing in common that they have is that they say the world-as-we-know-it didn't use to be there, and then it came to be in some imaginative (but entirely stone-age) way.*

Just out of curiosity, what is your modern, up-to-date, scientific creation myth?

Something you don't seem to realize is that while the avantgarde theories are subject to radical revision, there is a continually growing core of solid fact within science. The modern scientific misconceptions may be laughed at in the future; however, they would be a lot less laughable than the stone-age misconceptions because they contain far more truth (where truth is defined by the impartial reality as opposed to some dogma.)

*Originally posted by Bambi
As for the "order of creation", I should think it obvious even to a person with stone age knowledge that man in absense of anything else is a little weird. Seeing how everything comes from the earth and returns to the earth, one can only conclude that the earth comes first. *

Which is how the creation account describes it.

Which is why the creation account describes it like that (not because it's divinely inspired, but because it's blinkin' obvious.)

Thanks for the myths, but where are the corresponding facts?

Under your nose, and also at the library near you.

What hippopotamus has a tail like a tree?

Ever seen a hippopotamus tail? Here's one sample, for your voyeuristic indulgence:

 

[Bambi]

Asguard,

There's no question that a lot of the things we know today are misinterpreted, incomplete, or both. However, with time we do accumulate a core of solid knowledge that does grow. In that respect, we are vastly above the stone-age cultures that originated the various ancient religions.

Now, I don't recall even one ancient religion that puts a Big Bang as the starting point of the universe. But with respect to Big Bang, I find it curious that it is the one place you consider worthy of supernatural interference. Why don't you ask who or what started the sun coming up in the east and setting in the west? Is that perhaps because there are already explanations that don't involve the supernatural? If your point is that there is currently no explanation of the cause of the Big Bang and therefore the cause must be supernatural, then I must question the integrity of your line of reasoning.

So far nothing exists to point toward anything supernatural. Such a preponderance of a lack of evidence should foster the appropriate conclusion -- rather than the contrarian one.

 

[Asguard]

didn't you just answer your second statement with your first

(I know this isn't word perfect) "Just because we don't know its their dosen't mean its not" i mean we wouldn't want to get labled as "Stone aged" would we now

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by Asguard

"Just because we don't know its their dosen't mean its not" i mean we wouldn't want to get labled as "Stone aged" would we now

Still we can't keep on worrying about the infinity of things that might be but aren't.

Plus, consider the origin of the supernatural ideas. The origin is clearly child-like. Now are we to remain child-like forever, or are we to someday grow up? The monster in the closet isn't real -- even though you can't prove that; you just assume based on your knowledge of the origins of the concept, your observational background, and a little bit of common sense (not even necessarily formal logic.)

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Bambi
The modern scientific misconceptions may be laughed at in the future*

They're pretty much getting laughed at now.

*far more truth (where truth is defined by the impartial reality as opposed to some dogma.)*

Truth is a good thing, and dogma is a bad thing, but I wonder if you're aware that dogma is pretty much limited to the Catholic Church.
After all, they invented it.

*Which is why the creation account describes it like that (not because it's divinely inspired, but because it's blinkin' obvious.)*

I wonder if you realize what you just said.
Has it ever occurred to you that pretty much everything in the Bible is blinkin' obvious?

It is only other religions and science that have the world-view that everything is hidden in some way or another, and answers have to be searched for long and hard.

*Under your nose, and also at the library near you.*

I meant the real facts, not the fictions that are presented as facts.

*Ever seen a hippopotamus tail? Here's one sample, for your voyeuristic indulgence:*

Ummm, yeah, thanks.
There IS some vague resemblance to a tiny cedar twig, all right.
You must live in a strange place if you think that's what cedars look like.

*Plus, consider the origin of the supernatural ideas. The origin is clearly child-like. Now are we to remain child-like forever, or are we to someday grow up?*

Nowhere near as child-like as the idea that frogs turn into princes.
Hey! Isn't that out of some children's fairy-tale?
Nope, it's evolution.

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by tony1

Truth is a good thing, and dogma is a bad thing, but I wonder if you're aware that dogma is pretty much limited to the Catholic Church.
After all, they invented it.

Gee, I didn't realize that Catholics invented the Holy, True, Incorruptible Bible.

*Which is why the creation account describes it like that (not because it's divinely inspired, but because it's blinkin' obvious.)*

I wonder if you realize what you just said.
Has it ever occurred to you that pretty much everything in the Bible is blinkin' obvious?

The Bible sometimes gets it wrong even on simple aspects of the natural world (not even mentioning more complex aspects like the origin of life.) It expresses the naive, intuitive conclusions of its authors. As it happens, oversimiplification is a road to error. Not that they oversimplified deliberately -- they were diligently expressing the top-flying wisdom of the day.

On the other hand how is the creation story, the garden of Eden story, the Noah + flood story, the tower of Babel story, or the end of days story blinkin' obvious? If you don't teach such stories to someone, how likely are they to come up with those exact stories on their own? The Bible is full of myths, interspersed by a sprinkling of facts.

It is only other religions and science that have the world-view that everything is hidden in some way or another, and answers have to be searched for long and hard.

The world is complicated. Deal with it.

*Ever seen a hippopotamus tail? Here's one sample, for your voyeuristic indulgence:*

Ummm, yeah, thanks.
There IS some vague resemblance to a tiny cedar twig, all right.
You must live in a strange place if you think that's what cedars look like.

No problem. And of course the Bible does not contain any poetic hyperbole either.

Nowhere near as child-like as the idea that frogs turn into princes.
Hey! Isn't that out of some children's fairy-tale?
Nope, it's evolution.

If it was so child-like, children would not find evolution so counter-intuitive. Just goes to show you that intuition is not your best guide. In fact here you are a fully grown adult, and even you don't get it. Of course, you do systematically lack the prerequisite knowledge, so I'm not surprised.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Bambi
Gee, I didn't realize that Catholics invented the Holy, True, Incorruptible Bible.*

That's not what dogma is.

Here's the Catholic definition...

"The word dogma (Gr. dogma from dokein) signifies, in the writings of the ancient classical authors, sometimes, an opinion or that which seems true to a person; sometimes, the philosophical doctrines or tenets, and especially the distinctive philosophical doctrines, of a particular school of philosophers, and sometimes, a public decree or ordinance, as dogma poieisthai."

IOW, it has very little to do with the Bible.

*Exactly. Which is precisely why the Bible sometimes gets it wrong on aspects of the natural world. It expresses the naive, intuitive conclusions of its authors.*

The Bible is pretty much counter-intuitive all the way through.
It's pretty obvious, though.

*On the other hand how is the creation story, the garden of Eden story, the Noah + flood story, the tower of Babel story, or the end of days story blinkin' obvious?*

They're obvious the same way many things are obvious, once you learn them.

*The Bible is full of myths, interspersed by a sprinkling of facts.*

Myth is only myth if it isn't true.

*The world is complicated. Deal with it.*

It's only complicated for you.
For me, it's a piece of cake, which, incidentally I get to eat and keep, too.

*No problem. And of course the Bible does not contain any poetic hyperbole either.*

Let me guess, this is the way you argue that you are still correct about behemoth being a hippopotamus.
Mind you, you might be right, but those cedars leave something to be desired.

*If it was so child-like, children would not find evolution so counter-intuitive.*

Kids don't question the frog-into-prince fairy-tale, nor do they question evolution.
They trust that adults wouldn't be feeding them pure crap.
Silly kids.

*In fact here you are a fully grown adult, and even you don't get it. Of course, you do systematically lack the prerequisite knowledge, so I'm not surprised. *

Is that a subtle attempt at sarcasm?
You are correct in one sense, I do lack the knowledge of how to delude myself as fully as an evolutionist.

Just for the hell of it, why don't you try explaining how sea animals evolved into land animals, and see if you have the "prerequisite" knowledge.

tiassa tried once, and while he admits to being a writer and artist rather than a scientist, he came up with an imaginative gill-on-top-of-the-head idea.
He failed to explain how these brand-new land animals didn't dry out in 5 minutes like today's fish do, even though they supposedly took 20 million years to make the transition.
Give it a shot.

 

[Hoth]

Answers are rarely simply, Tony, but this one seems to be. Have you ever heard of amphibians? You know, they have both gills and lungs.

(I wonder why god bothered creating them. )

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by tony1

That's not what dogma is.

...

IOW, it has very little to do with the Bible.

Time for me to pull that dictionary out and use your own methodology on you. With that, Merriam-Webster online says:

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

IOW, the Bible fits the definition rather well. Of course, the ancient usage might have been different from modern meaning, but we are both modern aren't we? And speaking the same language, I'd hope...

*The world is complicated. Deal with it.*

It's only complicated for you.
For me, it's a piece of cake, which, incidentally I get to eat and keep, too.

Ignorance is not nearly as blissful as you think. Too bad you don't know any better.

Kids don't question the frog-into-prince fairy-tale, nor do they question evolution.
They trust that adults wouldn't be feeding them pure crap.
Silly kids.

Yeah... especially the ones in the Bible belt. Ughhhh....

Just for the hell of it, why don't you try explaining how sea animals evolved into land animals, and see if you have the "prerequisite" knowledge.

I hardly know the subject matter, so I'm hardly up to the challenge (I'm not a paleobiologist, after all.) On the other hand, I do know of a species of modern fish that does quite well on land. See for example: http://www.panda.org/kids/wildlife/fmclperc.htm

There's another cuddly-looking fish species called the mudskipper. Check it out on the web. It even climbs trees! Here's a shot of that loveable critter:

To me, it's pretty plausible that the transition was made along similar lines.

(BTW the requisite knowledge I was talking about does not concern the entire history of life -- rather just the facts establishing evolution as having happened, and the basics necessary to grasp the foundation and mechanics of evolution. Neither of which you command, obviously -- and no I'm not being sarcastic; I'm just making a conclusion based on all of your posts I've ever read.)

 

[Asguard]

Bambi

There are many things that can’t be seen that are believed to exist. Take atoms and subatomic particles for example they can’t be seen but scientists believe they exist, and what about the stars that are to far away to be seen with even the strongest telescope but scientists believe they exist. In fact in light of evidence to the contrary they have FAITH that they do.

Then there are all those poor people who have FAITH that the sun will rise tomorrow. I mean they don’t have factual evidence that it will.

A religious person on the other hand has FAITH in a higher power of some description. They have no hard evidence that it dose but then neither do the sceptics have evidence that it doesn’t. So this poor, depraved person must decide dose the universe make more sense to be a huge cosmic accident or if it is the plan of a higher power. I really pity these people.