This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Mayim Bialik (Big Bang Theory) weighs in on Genesis creation account

#31FlashOfLightPosted 6/12/2013 11:50:17 PM
OrangeWizard posted...

Do they?

Is it not valid to say "This person definitely wasn't killed by a .45 bullet", when they aren't clear what, exactly, killed a person?

Is it not valid to say "The person that was killed is definitely not Obama", when they aren't able to identify the murder victim?

Is it not valid to day "Given X + 2 = 4, X Definitely doesn't equal 4."

To say "Because you don't know what X equals, you can't say what it doesn't equal" is some sort of an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

So no, they don't have to "get their story straight".


Everything you compared is pointless, it by no means is even in the same range of speculation that the mentioned theorists go to.

So, I repeat, yes, they do have to get their story straight.


"Nobody knows" does not mean "maybe", "if", or "could be". It means "Nobody knows".


Then they shouldn't speculate on it, but that's not the case here either, they are blatantly given a definition by the direct source himself, and they play mental gymnastics to run around it and not accept it.

Good grief, man, if this same line of logic is followed then, LET'S DO IT ->

Gen 1:30

"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Maybe green means blue, God really meant to say blue. You see, green back then was still blue, somehow all the hues had not developed yet, either that or chlorophyll back then was a blue pigment.

Have I ever seen green herbs at that time? How do I know they weren't blue? I don't, I only have God's word to go on, BUT I can trump over his word, cause I know better and best, and he didn't know what he was talking about. So, green = blue.

Gen 1:10

"And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."

WHAT? Dry land = Earth? NO, what he really meant were the first 4 rock-based planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, yes, that's what he meant.

Then he says waters = Seas? No, no, he is wrong, what he really meant was the remaining gaseous planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
---
The internet - Tell THEM everything ;)
#32FlashOfLightPosted 6/13/2013 12:12:50 AM
OrangeWizard posted...

Just because someone CAN make something instantly, doesn't mean they are obligated to do so.

I could make a game in two weeks. That doesn't mean I can't take my time and enjoy making the same game in two months. I don't care if you don't take me seriously as a speedy game programmer.


You're right, they are not obligated to, but he CHOSE to do so in that particular way, just as he chose a succession of events, man before woman, beast before man, evening before morning. Order, that's what the God of Israel is about. A place for everything, and everything in its place, as Rosie the Robot would say.

It's emphasized in the very beginning of Luke, behold ->

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

You got that? Order and specific intent is the manner of the God of the Bible. Certainty and speculation are opposed to each other. But don't take my word for it, just in case, for the nitpickers in the audience -

Via The Free Dictionary:

"Speculate
verb. speculated, speculating, speculates
v.intr.
1. To meditate on a subject; reflect.
2. To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence."

So, certainty and speculation are not compatible in this specific case where the direct information about a specific subject is given.
---
The internet - Tell THEM everything ;)
#33FlashOfLightPosted 6/13/2013 12:28:43 AM
For example's sake...

Written on May 20th 2013

http://www.infotechblogs.com/2013/05/xbox-360-game-console-successor-called.html

"Info Tech Microsoft will launch the successor of the Xbox 360 gaming console called Durango or Xbox 720. A recent news, through a domain registration company revealed that the software giant's Windows OS will launch the latest game consoles as the Xbox Fusion.

Reported by Techhive, Friday (05/17/2013), there is a lot of speculation about the name of the Xbox 360 successor. Once touted as a Durango game console, but later it was discovered that the naming is the name of internal development.

Registration of new domain names provide convincing evidence that the company founded by Bill Gates, will be marketed the new Xbox under the brand name 'Xbox Fusion'. Naming of the Xbox 720 is considered "rumors", as the Xbox 720 (multiples of 360) is considered not an official name.

Recently, information obtained from a news website Reddit revealed that possibility next Xbox will be called Xbox Infinity. However, this is only conjecture and has not been confirmed directly by Microsoft."

BUT hey, let's be stubborn and call it Xbox Infinity anyway, cause speculation trumps a direct source. It's not what's true, it's what WE like.
---
The internet - Tell THEM everything ;)
#34bratt100Posted 6/13/2013 12:42:37 AM
Moorish_Idol posted...
Moses: Hey Aaron, how do you spell "quark" in Hebrew?
Aaron: No idea. What do you want to know that for?
M: It's Yahweh again. Keeps telling all this strange stuff about strangeness and charm and spin, and quarks and gravitons and dark matter. I don't mind not understanding, but I need to know how to write this stuff down.
A: Tell Him we're just stone-age goat-herders living a subsistence existence, and you're the only one who can read and write. Ask Him for something simpler, like why does the sun rise every morning?

Moses goes away up Mt. Sinai, and returns 3 days later.

M: He says the sun doesn't rise in the morning, its the earth moving.
A: I've felt the earth move once or twice (snicker), but not usually in the morning!
M: Nothing like that bro', we live on a giant ball, and it goes round and round on its axis, and that makes the sun look like it's moving.
A: What's a ball?
M: Dunno, bro', I asked Him that and He started to talk about radii and something called a pie, and the number 3.1412, but then He said "forget it!" and muttered under his breath about next time I'll just say 3.
A: Did He tell you anything else?
M: Yeah, that when He said we came from the dust of the ground he meant we had gradually evolved for billions of years.
A: What's billions?
M: Dunno mate, but I think it's a number greater than pie.
A: What does evolved mean?
M: He says it actually took Him more than 6 days to make all this. I told Him I didn't really care how long he took, I wasn't in any hurry.
A: What did he say then?
M: He said, let's start again. Just write this down: "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth" And I said, "that's more like it, now you're talking my language!" He just smiled and said, "thanks".


That was pretty awesome.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#35OrangeWizardPosted 6/13/2013 7:47:22 AM
From: FlashOfLight | #030
Everything you compared is pointless


Everything I compared is not pointless.

Your logic is "If you don't know how long a "day" is, you can't say it's not 24 hours!"
My examples were "If you don't know what X is, you can't say that it's not Y".

That is no different. You're making the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

they are blatantly given a definition by the direct source himself


They are? Where does the bible say that these were literal 24 hour periods?

From: FlashOfLight | #031
but he CHOSE to do so in that particular way


What's your point?

Order and specific intent is the manner of the God of the Bible.


What's your point?

So, certainty and speculation are not compatible in this specific case where the direct information about a specific subject is given.


What "direct information?"
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#36ThuggernautzPosted 6/13/2013 12:00:18 PM(edited)
One other thing to consider, Flash, is the word used for day here: yom. Hebrew is not nearly as expansive as English. As such, the word yom is used to denote multiple different periods of time, from days to centuries. This is the case throughout the Bible, and in other Hebrew literature.

In other words, the translation of 'yom' into day carries with it a different definition. It is a bad translation. It could have been written 7 ages, 7 aeons, 7 whatevers. The point is, the word is not necessarily a strict 24 hour period because there was no exclusive Hebrew word for such a thing.

And trust me, I'd rather not agree with the apologists but in this case it seems necessary. The ordering of creation is still wrong though, so you definitely have a valid point in that regard. Except that all of the evidence in this case contradicts the Biblical claim. So I guess you're wrong on two accounts.
#37TheBlackCat13Posted 6/13/2013 1:07:25 PM
The problem isn't just that the order of events are wrong (which they are), it is that even people living at the time should have noticed that many of these things were wrong (which they probably did since many of these mistakes are lacking in many other mythologies, and even other parts of the Bible).

For example, Genesis specifically talks about day and night even on the first day, but the sun doesn't appear until day four. Other cultures at the time understood the connection between the day and the sun, anyone who has seen or even heard of a solar eclipse can do that (even if you don't know what a solar eclipse is or why it happens).

Even if you interpret day as a longer period, despite the fact that there is explicit references to day and night, you still have the problem of plants. People living at the time should have known that plants depend on sunlight, but plants appear on day three while the sun doesn't appear until day four (which would mean thousands, millions, or even billions of years of plants existing without sunlight).

There are other problems as well. You could argue that there is a 50/50 chance regarding whether land or ocean came first (which Genesis got wrong, it had the ocean coming first), but anyone who has used an anchor could have figured out there is land below the water, tipping the balance towards land. Similarly, the water that makes up the ocean and the water that makes up the rain is the same thing in Genesis (God takes the primordial waters and splits them into waters above the Earth and waters below), yet anyone living anywhere near the coast would know that ocean water is salty while rain water is not (even if they didn't understand that the difference was due to salt).

The more fundamental problem is the assumption that "if it is wrong, it must be a metaphor or allegory for something". It could simply be wrong.
---
Man Is The Lowest Cost, 150 Pound, Nonlinear, All-purpose Computer System Which Can Be Mass Produced By Unskilled Labor
-- NASA
#38halo07guyPosted 6/13/2013 1:17:33 PM
Necessary reminder that Flash of Light is the resident geocentrist.
#39OrangeWizardPosted 6/13/2013 5:28:40 PM
From: TheBlackCat13 | #036
For example, Genesis specifically talks about day and night even on the first day, but the sun doesn't appear until day four.


Genesis 1 was written from the perspective of a hypothetical human standing upon the earth.

Before the fourth day, there was a mist all around the earth, as stated in Genesis 2. He did not separate the "waters above and the waters below" yet.

This mist obscured the source of the light, which was the sun. When he "made" the sun, he simply "revealed" it, so that it appeared to have been made.

Or if that explanation seems too convoluted for you: He's an omnipotent God and can do anything he wants. He could shine a giant flashlight on the sun and create night and day if he wanted to.

you still have the problem of plants. People living at the time should have known that plants depend on sunlight, but plants appear on day three while the sun doesn't appear until day four (which would mean thousands, millions, or even billions of years of plants existing without sunlight).


Goddidit

Or: There was still light, it was just diffused through the aforementioned mist.

yet anyone living anywhere near the coast would know that ocean water is salty while rain water is not (even if they didn't understand that the difference was due to salt).


Salt doesn't exactly come from water. It's a mineral. It comes from the earth. If the "primordial water" as you call it, was unsalted, then taking half of it and putting it around a bunch of salt will give you salt water.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#40DarkContractorPosted 6/13/2013 7:11:03 PM(edited)
Genesis is a double entrede to me; it is supposed to show how the nation of Israel is setup, starting with the first of God's people while re-conciliating the problem of evil with an all loving deity. Even from a strict Biblical perspective, we can see that we have no choice but to conclude that there were humans living before Adam and Eve; when Yahweh was listing the punishments to Eve, for example, he warns her that he will increase birth pains. Why would Eve know what the hell he was talking about if giving birth was not a thing yet?

Furthermore, Cain is scared that he will be murdered as he wanders the Earth. Except, if Adam and Eve were the first humans, period, then who the hell is he scared of? His immediate family or something?

On the issue of creation errancy, I would also argue that if we look at our actual datings in reality of things such as the origin of life, how old the Earth is, the age of the universe, when plants and animals came about, they are not equal amounts of time. Unless we argue that Day 1 is a different day from Day 2 (which I see zero textual support and really no reason to think that except for trying to salvage your believes, no intellectual reason, though) , then re-defining what day means is irrelevant because there are inconsistent periods of time in between each event.

I also find it interesting that the sky is called a dome. Except it's not; it's a sphere. This error is especially interesting because it gives us a look into ancient Israelite believes; this error is more than likely because the Israelites believed the Earth was flat, a stance that has lots of academic and textual backing to it.

It's also interesting how see Genesis borrowing elements from Babylonian myths, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.