The Genesis Account and Science

[SnakeLord]

I'm not intrested in the implications that snakelord and Skinwalker are trying to avoid. That there is an intelligent force behind some of these acts.

Kindly don't use my name and the word avoidance when you're currently avoiding my post. Furthermore, get your head out of your backside and recognise that this has nothing to do with intelligent forces, (especially none concerning the creator of this thread), but the absolute lack of science within your posts.

Now, if you can have an adult conversation then please point out where there is science present in genesis or your posts and we can take it from there.

 

[Saquist]

Your chastiment is unwarranted snakelord.
We have reached and impasse. I need more information from you and you're unwilling to elaborate on what you want.

Since you're entire argument is that my arguement is unscientific you'd think you'd be intrested in pointing out my flaws...you are not. The result is your descision.

That result being an impasse.

I can't take your allegation seriously if you fail to expound on them to be answered in a forthright manner. I think you know you have no solid ground here. Your departure was foreseeable, your argument illogical and unproven, your position, precarious and responses, emotional.

You must learn to govern yourself.

 

[SnakeLord]

I need more information from you and you're unwilling to elaborate on what you want.

What information do you need from me?

Since you're entire argument is that my arguement is unscientific you'd think you'd be intrested in pointing out my flaws...you are not.

I have asked you to point out what in your posts you *think* is scientific. I am doing so because it will help to point out where you're going wrong and why. Show me what in genesis you think is scientific, I shall look at the claim and then show you why it isn't, if it isn't. Thus far I have seen no science in your posts but am willing to accept that I could have misread/misunderstood or accidentally missed those scientific parts. That is why it would be best for you to point them out to me. Are you with me so far? I'd like to hope so.

Your departure was foreseeable

What departure? Surely you cannot claim departure when you're currently... uhh... talking to me, and I am currently... uhh.. responding to you? What departure are you talking about? Hello?

Btw, you still ignored my earlier post.

your argument illogical and unproven

Sorry, what argument was illogical? Sorry, why are you talking unproven when you're arguing genesis? Isn't that hypocrisy? Do you do that often? (I've asked this before).

your position, precarious and responses, emotional

Kindly show the precarious and emotional responses. Your argument is thus far illogical and unproven :bugeye:

You must learn to govern yourself.

Seemingly you must learn a lot of things. Me saying it doesn't make you do it, now does it? Btw, can we stick to a debate about the issues and not about what I should or should not do? Cheers very much.

 

[Saquist]

What information do you need from me?

detail your complaint.



I

have asked you to point out what in your posts you *think* is scientific. I am doing so because it will help to point out where you're going wrong and why. Show me what in genesis you think is scientific, I shall look at the claim and then show you why it isn't, if it isn't. Thus far I have seen no science in your posts but am willing to accept that I could have misread/misunderstood or accidentally missed those scientific parts. That is why it would be best for you to point them out to me. Are you with me so far? I'd like to hope so.

I need to know your definition of scientific to bridge the gap.

What departure? Surely you cannot claim departure when you're currently... uhh... talking to me, and I am currently... uhh.. responding to you? What departure are you talking about? Hello?

You left and then you returned for a large amount of time excusing yourself from the discussion.

Btw, you still ignored my earlier post.

That is correct.

Sorry, what argument was illogical?

Your failure to recognize like similarities between the account and science

Sorry, why are you talking unproven when you're arguing genesis?

And yet that is the point of the thread illistrated in detail and compared. You've not proven "unscientific" Your implication.

Isn't that hypocrisy? Do you do that often? (I've asked this before).

You only think there is hypocrisy on my part. But it is not case. Your point of view has clouded your judgement and reasoning skills.

Kindly show the precarious and emotional responses. Your argument is thus far illogical and unproven

Unfounded claims, inability to reason, inability to communicate effectively, having no agreement or any commonality....all markers of an emotional response.

Seemingly you must learn a lot of things. Me saying it doesn't make you do it, now does it? Btw, can we stick to a debate about the issues and not about what I should or should not do? Cheers very much.

This is your instigation I'm only defending my position. Untill you throw something my way the ball is still in your court...Your reluctance to serve is the reason for the imapasse. I initiated by starting the thread. You gave rejoinder but failed to serve in bounds. You failed to give rejoinder that would be logical to respond to...thus the ball...is still in your court.

When you left I assumed you forfeited.
You will either find a way to resolve the schism in an active way or you will leave. I'd put money on one of these options...

 

[river-wind]

I need to know your definition of scientific to bridge the gap.

It seems to me that this thread should not have been started while this meaning was still up in the air.

 

[Saquist]

I propose that the contradiction should not have been placed will this meaning was still in the air.

I know the Webster-Merriam definition of Scientific. I based my conclusions from this definition. They appear to have a different definition

 

[SnakeLord]

detail your complaint.

Complaint: There appears to be no science in your arguments.

I need to know your definition of scientific to bridge the gap.

We'll get to that once you point out what you think in your post is scientific. We can argue definitions after that has been done.

You left and then you returned for a large amount of time excusing yourself from the discussion.

I didn't do anything of the sort.

Let me explain the basics to you... A conversation generally begins with a person making a statement/asking a question. Another person then responds to that statement/question. This continues until an agreement is reached or everyone gets bored.

I asked you several questions and sat here patiently awaiting a response - as is customary in conversations. I never did get that response, not even now some 8 pages later. I didn't go anywhere, you just refused to answer the questions.

You then ignored my further questions which you agree with but fail to provide an explanation for why.

Your failure to recognize like similarities between the account and science

Such as? Ah yes, the watery earth.. the earth wasn't watery according to science, although this has been told to you before. All you said then was.. "excellent, to continue". Who has the "failure to recognise"? It doesn't seem to be me, and while I know you would like to tarnish me with that brush.. I think the shoe fits better on you and is clearly evidenced.

You've not proven "unscientific" Your implication.

I don't follow. You are seemingly saying that if science doesn't specifically sit down and prove that a god doesn't exist then you will use the bible to say he does and then consider that scientific. It's frankly quite bizarre.

Your point of view has clouded your judgement and reasoning skills.

What point of view was that exactly? Show me where you were being scientific and I shall concede.

Unfounded claims

There is no observable science in your arguments. Of course I could be mistaken so kindly point out the parts you consider to be scientific and then we can look further into the claim.

inability to reason

Please, you're being daft.

inability to communicate effectively

Says the person with piss poor English skills. Pot/kettle.

having no agreement or any commonality....

Ah, so I must agree with something you say regardless to how wrong it might be?

all markers of an emotional response.

Not really, no.

Untill you throw something my way the ball is still in your court...

Ok, here is an example of all the science you have used thus far in your posts: [ ]. Oops, it's empty. If you think there is some science in your claims then please point it out to me incase I have overlooked it. Need I ask another dozen times?

When you left I assumed you forfeited.

I forfeited because you failed to answer? Lol where your intelligence fails your humour takes over.

You will either find a way to resolve the schism in an active way or you will leave. I'd put money on one of these options...

How much and will you sign a legally binding contract?

 

[river-wind]

I propose that the contradiction should not have been placed will this meaning was still in the air.

I know the Webster-Merriam definition of Scientific. I based my conclusions from this definition. They appear to have a different definition

MW online dictionary:
Scientific: " of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science "
Science: "1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE"

 

[SkinWalker]

On the creation account "after status" of other creation stories...I remember a quote from P.J. Wiseman.

He points out that when the Babylonian creation tablets were discovered scholars made a simple prediction. They assumed that a future discovery and research would show that there was a corresponding traits between the creation account of Genesis and the Babylonian account.

And there are corresponding motifs (traits if you will) between the Genesis myth and earlier myths. I shall be all too happy to describe them here at another time since I'm currently abroad and away from my primary sources. In short, Wiseman is wrong and I'll demonstrate why.

In the meantime, I'll repost here what I've posted elsewhere on another Genesis myth (the Noachian flood).

The Gilgamesh epic is demonstrably the literary progenitor of the Noachian myth. I'll include passages from both Genesis and Gilgamesh here in a line-numbered format to compare:

1. 
   [*]At the end of forty days
   [*]Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and released a raven,
   [*]Which flew back and forth as it waited for the waters to dry up on the earth
   [*]Then he released a dove to see whether the waters were receding from the earth
   [*]But the dove, finding nowhere to perch, returned to the ark, for there was water over the whole surface of the earth. Putting his hand out, he took hold of it and brought it back into the ark with him.
   [*]After waiting seven more days, he again released the dove from the ark.
   [*]In the evening the dove came back to him and there in his beak was a freshly-picked olive leaf! So Noah realized that the waters were receding from the earth.
   [*]After waiting seven more days, he released the dove and now it returned no more.
   

--Genesis 8:6-12

Now Gilgamesh:

1. 
   [*]When the seventh day arrived,
   [*]I sent forth and set free a dove.
   [*]The dove went forth but came back since no resting place was visible, she turned around.
   [*]Then I set forth a swallow
   [*]The swallow went forth but came back, since no resting place for it was visible, she turned around.
   [*] .
   [*] .
   [*]I then set free a raven. The raven went forth and, seeing that the waters had diminished, he eats, circles, caws, and turns not around.
   

--Gligamesh XI, 145-54

In the Gilgamesh passage, I left two blank lines to maintain the correlation between the two and show the parallels. The Genesis passage shows clear embellishments (again, a common literary device of the period) I took the Gilgamesh passage from Pritchard (1955, pp 94-95).

It follows that if there are clear parallels and evidence of borrowed motifs between earlier flood myths and the Noachian one, then other sub-myths within the overall myth of Genesis would also be expected to have been borrowed. This isn't evidence of "intellectual dishonesty" on the part of the authors of Genesis, rather this is evidence of the practice of the day. Nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples (as well as many sedentary peoples) had strong oral traditions (and still do) in which they pass on information from one generation to the next which they find important or vital to their culture. In so doing, embellishments naturally occur in the evolution of the story. What may have once been a factually based account of a real event becomes convoluted and embellished to the point that it can only now be considered a myth. Myths and stories get embellished also due to the encounters of the story-tellers with other story-tellers.

We must consider that even Abram (later "Abraham" in the "J" source, a name redaction justified by the "P" source) admits that he is nomadic and originally Sumerian. The myths in question are, indeed, Sumerian (a.k.a. Chaldean). There is even emerging evidence of a diaspora in the Persian Gulf region, perhaps due to inundation of the Persian Gulf basin before 4,000 BCE, which may be the progenitor for the flood myths themselves. Certainly the origins of the Sumerians (they come from "Dilmun" according to their own writings, a place described as "eden" and "paradise") is largely a mystery: their language is a linguistic isolate and their religion acculturates itself gradually -almost seamlessly- with the earlier Ubaid culture at around the Jemdat Nasr period (4000-3100 BCE).

Yeah, I've read the same WIki page on Genesis. It didn't include this and it seemed your post duplicated the Wiki source and perhaps others I've seen on the internet. You did a good job of summarizing the entry and showed great understanding of what you read....However your research was not complete.

I honestly did not read the Wikipedia entry on the topic. My information comes from primary sources and notes I've taken on the topic from primary sources over many years. If the the Wiki author(s) matched my own account, then I accept the complement. It remains to be seen, however, if my "research" is incomplete. You certainly haven't refuted it with a single passage by a single Creation nutter with a book. As I said, I'll get back to the topic of Sumerian/Chaldean origins for Genesis, which is a truly scientific way of accounting for Genesis rather than the pseudoscientific attempts you presented to date. And it is for this reason I'm happy to contribute to the thread.

[Moderator Note]: Saquist, I'm asking, as moderator, that you briefly summarize the points which you feel you've made to date which are scientific descriptive of the Genesis account in the Christian bible. I ask that you do this for the good of the thread and those participating since the back-and-forth between you and Snaklord is consuming space and time. Moreover, your refusal to acknowledge his request is giving the appearance that you are stalling or being intellectually dishonest by dodging the issue in the hopes of avoiding riposte or refutation. This is a poor debating tactic if the case.

 

[Saquist]

The point of this thread is to show the scientific relevancy of the Genesis account. Which I have done.

The process of creation followed a logical and scientific progress up to this point in day four. The bible is the only creation story that tells of the creation of the universe. and then the Earth...acknowledging the propper order.

That is scientificly sound.

The creation of light first. And an expanse of time (undefined) that the Earth existed before it came to first day to be molded by God's purposes...possibily billions of years

That is scientificly sound.

The very descriptions of formless, waste, and dark are perfect scientific descriptions of the an early Earth that has met with the most irrelevent and academic opposition and still remains as a good description of the Earth.

Light present for plant life and the revealing of Sun and the moon from amidst a cloud layer or heavy expanse. Propper and scientific description especial after one looks deeper into the Hebrew...

The search it's self is scientific and the premise is scientific.

Stated on page 9...ignored by........many...

 

[kenworth]

wow.this is stressful.someone please ask/answer a direct question

 

[SkinWalker]

From this point, I'll be deleting as off-topic the continued back and forth between Snakelord and Saquist. I ask again that Saquist make a short list, perhaps even numbered or bulleted, of the principles or points that he considers to be scientific with regard to Genesis as a means of summarizing his position to date in this, now, 11 page thread. It is, of course, his choice to do so or not. Failing to do so *does* give the appearance that he is dodging the issue since it doesn't appear that anything truly scientific has been said by him so far.

To which, Saquist responded with the following (during the time it took me to type the above paragraph):
1. The process of creation followed a logical and scientific progress up to this point in day four. The bible is the only creation story that tells of the creation of the universe. and then the Earth...acknowledging the proper order.

2. The creation of light first. And an expanse of time (undefined) that the Earth existed before it came to first day to be molded by God's purposes...possibly billions of years

3. The very descriptions of formless, waste, and dark are perfect scientific descriptions of the an early Earth that has met with the most irrelevant and academic opposition and still remains as a good description of the Earth.

4. Light present for plant life and the revealing of Sun and the moon from amidst a cloud layer or heavy expanse. proper and scientific description especially after one looks deeper into the Hebrew...

5. The search it's self is scientific and the premise is scientific.

Spelling and grammatical edits are the only changes I made other than reducing the overall text to the specific points -SkinWalker

 

[Saquist]

And there are corresponding motifs (traits if you will) between the Genesis myth and earlier myths. I shall be all too happy to describe them here at another time since I'm currently abroad and away from my primary sources. In short, Wiseman is wrong and I'll demonstrate why.

You might as well have kept to yourself. Without source do expect me to take your word for it the wake of such an extreme amount of animosity? I can not. I've classified you as hostile not an information source your purpose appear to have an agenda other than the truth.

We will revisit the issue uppon the arrival of source information.

In the meantime, I'll repost here what I've posted elsewhere on another Genesis myth (the Noachian flood).

The Gilgamesh epic is demonstrably the literary progenitor of the Noachian myth. I'll include passages from both Genesis and Gilgamesh here in a line-numbered format to compare:

1. 
   [*]At the end of forty days
   [*]Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and released a raven,
   [*]Which flew back and forth as it waited for the waters to dry up on the earth
   [*]Then he released a dove to see whether the waters were receding from the earth
   [*]But the dove, finding nowhere to perch, returned to the ark, for there was water over the whole surface of the earth. Putting his hand out, he took hold of it and brought it back into the ark with him.
   [*]After waiting seven more days, he again released the dove from the ark.
   [*]In the evening the dove came back to him and there in his beak was a freshly-picked olive leaf! So Noah realized that the waters were receding from the earth.
   [*]After waiting seven more days, he released the dove and now it returned no more.
   

--Genesis 8:6-12

Now Gilgamesh:

1. 
   [*]When the seventh day arrived,
   [*]I sent forth and set free a dove.
   [*]The dove went forth but came back since no resting place was visible, she turned around.
   [*]Then I set forth a swallow
   [*]The swallow went forth but came back, since no resting place for it was visible, she turned around.
   [*] .
   [*] .
   [*]I then set free a raven. The raven went forth and, seeing that the waters had diminished, he eats, circles, caws, and turns not around.
   

--Gligamesh XI, 145-54

In the Gilgamesh passage, I left two blank lines to maintain the correlation between the two and show the parallels. The Genesis passage shows clear embellishments (again, a common literary device of the period) I took the Gilgamesh passage from Pritchard (1955, pp 94-95).

Fascinating. I've never read it. The similarites are remarkable if this is to a propper representation.

It follows that if there are clear parallels and evidence of borrowed motifs between earlier flood myths and the Noachian one, then other sub-myths within the overall myth of Genesis would also be expected to have been borrowed. This isn't evidence of "intellectual dishonesty" on the part of the authors of Genesis, rather this is evidence of the practice of the day. Nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples (as well as many sedentary peoples) had strong oral traditions (and still do) in which they pass on information from one generation to the next which they find important or vital to their culture. In so doing, embellishments naturally occur in the evolution of the story. What may have once been a factually based account of a real event becomes convoluted and embellished to the point that it can only now be considered a myth. Myths and stories get embellished also due to the encounters of the story-tellers with other story-tellers.

You have established before.
You have established...similar.
You have not established borrowed.
You have not established from who what was borrowed.

I acknolwedge your knowledge Skinwalker.
I have no counterpoint to your source of knowledge, internet or otherwise. I must take you for your word.

 

[SkinWalker]

I'll be all too happy to give a list of sources, but the most significant is James Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, of which there are two editions. One is basically an unabridged and very rare, but large text. The other is a smaller, but still very complete and useful text that has been reprinted many times. Both are compilations of the actual Near Eastern texts (letters, stories, myths, poems, psalms, hymns, etc.) from Sumeria, Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, etc.

If, with just the example I've given above, you can't see "borrowed" as well as "who and what" was borrowed, then you obviously aren't willing to look.

Look again at the line-by-line renditions of these two texts. Notice the trend:
1. at the end of a period of time
2. a bird sent forth
3. the bird came back -no dry land
4. a bird sent forth
5. the bird came back -no dry land
6. [addition of text in Noachian account]
7. [addition of text in Noachian account]
8. a final bird released. It doesn't return -dry land is found.

Both stories end with a covenant with the gods. I won't attempt to teach a class in literary criticism here (you'll have to seek such an education elsewhere), but suffice to say that when looking at cultural evolution of literary motifs, the subsequent cultures will generally embellish the previous account with information. The embellishments create a clear path of evolution that can be traced -cultural additions become obvious when information is known about the culture: the earlier Sumerian account (the Chaldeans predate Abraham, I think this is a point we can agree upon) is polytheistic, for instance. The later Jewish account is necessarily monotheistic.

 

[Saquist]

If, with just the example I've given above, you can't see "borrowed" as well as "who and what" was borrowed, then you obviously aren't willing to look.

You've proved that there is a river (metaphorically) between Gilgamesh and Noah....Now you must prove which direction that river ran.

written text dating can only tell us when a story was written not from where or when the story was created.

Both stories end with a covenant with the gods. I won't attempt to teach a class in literary criticism here (you'll have to seek such an education elsewhere), but suffice to say that when looking at cultural evolution of literary motifs, the subsequent cultures will generally embellish the previous account with information. The embellishments create a clear path of evolution that can be traced -cultural additions become obvious when information is known about the culture: the earlier Sumerian account (the Chaldeans predate Abraham, I think this is a point we can agree upon) is polytheistic, for instance. The later Jewish account is necessarily monotheistic.

However it has been informative none the less. But I see no conclusions here. I'll set down someother contentions later along the lines of determinations of the two fold authorship of Noah.

 

[river-wind]

Originally Posted by Saquist

The point of this thread is to show the scientific relevancy of the Genesis account. Which I have done.

The process of creation followed a logical and scientific progress up to this point in day four. The bible is the only creation story that tells of the creation of the universe. and then the Earth...acknowledging the propper order.

No it isn't. You need to read more about cultures other than the one you have chosen to trust in.

That is scientificly sound.

even if this was a true statement, it's not scientifically sound - you're just making a statement about a single item, which is a drastically small sample size to claim scientific solidity. Native American theology tends to say that deer are brother to mankind. Genetics have now shown this to be the case; as least more of the brother than a lizard or a bush.

Therefore this claim is as "scientifically sound" as your point about Genesis, according to your logic.

The creation of light first. And an expanse of time (undefined) that the Earth existed before it came to first day to be molded by God's purposes...possibily billions of years

That is scientificly sound.

Again, one item - light existed before the earth.

Similarly, the Incans appear to have calculated the circumfrence of the earth around the time when the bible was roughly calling it "circular". Genesis is again not special.

The very descriptions of formless, waste, and dark are perfect scientific descriptions of the an early Earth that has met with the most irrelevent and academic opposition and still remains as a good description of the Earth.

And the Aztecs felt that the this world was born of fire, which perfectly fits the idea of a spinning ball of molten stone prior to it being dark and desolate.

Of course, this whole thing is an exersize in revese logic. If you talk about "what came before life", then the answer is "non-life". If you then get a chance to look at the earth prior to life, claiming "hey, I was right!!" is foolish - you've designed your experiment (looking at the earth before life) to fit your assumption (that before life there was no life).

Light present for plant life and the revealing of Sun and the moon from amidst a cloud layer or heavy expanse. Propper and scientific description especial after one looks deeper into the Hebrew...

Only after you have interpreted the writings in your own way, from the standpoint of more knowledge than previous generations.

If you start with A, and add B, and find your result to be A again, then it is easy enough to see than B=Zero.
The Genesis quotes you have discussed so far can be understood as you have chosen to (a sphere in space), or as people did for a few thousand years - a flat circle with a sky dome overhead, floating in water.
The scientific view has, from the begining, pushed to the helio-centric idea of orbiting spheres.

So the understanding of the Bible changed based on what we know about science (B+A=A), but the understanding of science is not changed by what we know about the Bible (A + B = A).

How helpful has the Bible been in terms of describing the creation of the Earth, then?

The search it's self is scientific and the premise is scientific.

No it isn't. the search is innate, and driven by human crusiosity. but the method used is not scientific, and therefore the premise isn't either.

Stated on page 9...ignored by........many...

Not ignored. Just waiting for some more substantial evidence.

 

[Saquist]

No it isn't. You need to read more about cultures other than the one you have chosen to trust in.

No. Is conclusive yet you've made no path to that conclusion

even if this was a true statement, it's not scientifically sound - you're just making a statement about a single item, which is a drastically small sample size to claim scientific solidity. Native American theology tends to say that deer are brother to mankind. Genetics have now shown this to be the case; as least more of the brother than a lizard or a bush.

then we're not on the same level....I mention nothing about deer.

Therefore this claim is as "scientifically sound" as your point about Genesis, according to your logic.

metaphors aside...you've yet to prove so...disagree yes...but to put up a descive conclusion one must have decisive evidence.

Again, one item - light existed before the earth.

And the bible doesn't asy that it was created before.
So at this point we stop and address, concerning the information that I've provided that, why you think that the scripture is saying that the light was created on this day when the Hebrew says...revealed.

That's where you've snagged you "science meter" A point I've addressed in appropriate detail...and yet...we're back again as though it hadn't been addressed...

In other words you don't accept what the Hebrew words mean. I find this illogical. Information is information refuting information is done with contradictory information..

You've provided...what...error from past gernations as your point of contention. I do not understand this. Knowledge is universal. Wrong and Right are clear words.If the former understanding was "wrong" then why do you cling to the first?

 

[Saquist]

but not a scientific conclusion...
For a such a conclusion you must be able the questions.

You have established before.
You have established...similar.
You have not established borrowed.
You have not established from who what was borrowed.

Making a scientific conlusion without scientific answers to this question allows for error.

The propper conclusion is: Unknown to the time of inception. Unknown, to from who the text was borrowed.

I have never implied that anything less was needed for a scientific conclusion. I must remain impartial. Therefore you must show inception date before you conclude inception occured from a predated period from another idea inception.

To concluded that all accounts in history can be creation dates can be inferred from the time of writting overrides the known passing of verbal history from Jewish and and Islamic cultures who's foundation long ago had a verbal history before any written history.

 

[SkinWalker]

written text dating can only tell us when a story was written not from where or when the story was created.

You're asking what can be "scientifically" said about the Genesis account. I'm giving you scientific measurements. We have an objective method of literary analysis that is not objected to when applied to non-biblical literature, but when applied to the myths of the bible, suddenly its not valid?

Moreover, there is good, objective evidence that the Sumerian myths are far older than the later Jewish ones. Namely the very fact that the Jews did not exist as a cultural society until long after the Sumerians. This is the sort of fact that if you are to say otherwise, it becomes a claim that needs to be sourced. Should you need a citation to peer-reviewed data that supports what I'm saying with regard to the Chronology of Jewish versus Sumerian cultures, please ask. I'll dig one up.

then we're not on the same level....I mention nothing about deer.

You are absolutely and utterly wrong in this statement. He made a valid analogy of your "methodology," which is critical of your analysis. Your premise is that by showing a vague and non-specific fact that an ancient culture got right, does not demonstrate that this ancient culture was being "scientifically sound." Your entire set of premises in this regard create a non sequitur. The conclusions do not follow from the premises, i.e. the conclusion that an ancient society was acting in a "scientifically sound" manner cannot be established because of a single statement made by a representative of that culture. This is because we cannot establish that that representative used scientific method to make the statement. That Native Americans once referred to the deer as a brother to mankind would be "scientifically sound" if you premise held true. His analogy was pointing out the gaping and ignorant flaw in your premise(s).

metaphors aside...you've yet to prove so...disagree yes...but to put up a descive conclusion one must have decisive evidence.

Then show "decisive evidence" and stop making pseudoscientific claims. Either the ancient authors of Genesis were using science or they were guessing. You have yet to demonstrate with "decisive evidence" that they were. And, contrary to your claim in a post above that "many" ignored your points (which I summarized above) on page nine. I suggest you look back at my posts since I *did* address and refute them.

 

[Saquist]

You're asking what can be "scientifically" said about the Genesis account. I'm giving you scientific measurements. We have an objective method of literary analysis that is not objected to when applied to non-biblical literature, but when applied to the myths of the bible, suddenly its not valid? "

I'm asking what can be evidenced...not said, evidenced.

You are absolutely and utterly wrong in this statement. He made a valid analogy of your "methodology," which is critical of your analysis. Your premise is that by showing a vague and non-specific fact that an ancient culture got right, does not demonstrate that this ancient culture was being "scientifically sound."

I'm not intrested in "vague" or coincident. Those are subjective.
I'm looking for a match. And it matches with no disagreement.

Your entire set of premises in this regard create a non sequitur. The conclusions do not follow from the premises, i.e. the conclusion that an ancient society was acting in a "scientifically sound" manner cannot be established because of a single statement made by a representative of that culture.

Tangent. The point of the thread is not to address the cultures understanding. This was not a point of contention. Stick to the premise of the thread.

This is because we cannot establish that that representative used scientific method to make the statement. That Native Americans once referred to the deer as a brother to mankind would be "scientifically sound" if you premise held true. His analogy was pointing out the gaping and ignorant flaw in your premise(s).

His flaw was to address the culture's understanding..Is that too ignorant of the thread and a "gaping" flaw?

Then show "decisive evidence" and stop making pseudoscientific claims.

what is pseudoseientific? Any claim...all theories...or just what you classify in the circluar file system.

Either the ancient authors of Genesis were using science or they were guessing. You have yet to demonstrate with "decisive evidence" that they were. And, contrary to your claim in a post above that "many" ignored your points (which I summarized above) on page nine. I suggest you look back at my posts since I *did* address and refute them.

I see...You've gone to culture so as to disprove my intentions rather than addressing the text and avoiding matching the text and known today. You have to stay on point. This was not your contention before and it's not...the point of the thread.