Could We Have Been Lied To? (genesis 1-3)

Zaleukos said:

Well you have this atheist's respect for asking yourself the question of this thread, that is a pretty big step...

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Damian Mahadevan said:

Fair enough. The more I know. But that tree from Sweden is a bit suss though, why not use dendrochronology to date it?

Click to expand...

Because the tree---the actual wooden trunk part that has rings--is a much younger and more transitory part of the root system and isn't itself that old. The root system is the organism being dated, which is why I said it was a bit of a misnomer. But I have no doubt that a root system could live for that long, especially in an isolated area with a cold dry climate, because it's much more protected from soil-borne rots and the dangers on the surface, and constantly regenerating.
Interesting factoid: Did you know that all the trees in an older forest have a physical connection through their root systems? As they grow, roots intertwine from tree to tree and perform an action known as root-grafting, where they actually grow into and become part of the root system of other trees. Makes for a nice analogy about the interdependence of a community of living things.

Prime J wrote:

You think? IMO this is a bit different -- it's the same organism (the root system) growing a new organ (the visible tree), rather than an organisms begetting other organisms.

One of the things that occasionally keep me away at nights, though, is this question:

How old is an amoeba?

Click to expand...

Yeah, the geneaology comparison would only be strictly correct if your ancestors or some part of them were also continuously alive. My bad.

On the amoeba quandary, not only how old, but how unique or individual is a clone? Is it the exact same organism? Is it a new organism? Is it both?

Arhhh, my head hurts.

JemyM said:

(things about early Mesopotamian myths)

Click to expand...

You wouldn't happen to have any book tips on this stuff? I read Leonard Wooley's Excavations at Ur (Ur i Kaldéen in Swedish) about his archeological excavations at Ur in the early 20th century where, among other things, he found evidence of a great flood that had left everything but the highest points of the hills below water, as well as signs of a cultural shift around the same time (it's remarkable how much mere pottery tell). It was quite fascinating, but obviously rather limited in its scope as the history of the region is only portrayed to the extent that it could be connected to the findings at Ur so it left me hungry for more. Anything good on Mesopotamian history and myths up to the fall of Babylon to the Persians would be much appreciated.

KazikluBey said:

You wouldn't happen to have any book tips on this stuff? I read Leonard Wooley's Excavations at Ur (Ur i Kaldéen in Swedish) about his archeological excavations at Ur in the early 20th century where, among other things, he found evidence of a great flood that had left everything but the highest points of the hills below water, as well as signs of a cultural shift around the same time (it's remarkable how much mere pottery tell). It was quite fascinating, but obviously rather limited in its scope as the history of the region is only portrayed to the extent that it could be connected to the findings at Ur so it left me hungry for more. Anything good on Mesopotamian history and myths up to the fall of Babylon to the Persians would be much appreciated.

Click to expand...

If you just want a throughout tome that points out what Archeology/History have to say about biblical stuff, you as a Swede, can check Roger Viklund Den Jesus som aldrig funnits. The book have one downside, Viklund is not a historian/archeologist. On the good side, he's extremely well read and very throughout and he's very careful about making sure that the sources he use have good credentials, which he doesn't keep for himself, every page of that book reveals where you can go for more and check out the sources the book is based on. It's also a very throughout tome. The book covers 550+ pages and unlike the books that feels like reading a story, or the thoughts of the author, DJSAF spends almost every page serving fact-statements that it also tries to back up. It begins with a history of Canaan then go onto what inspired the Hebrews, how OT was developed, what inspired the early Christians, how NT was developed, the link to Ebionites and Gnostics, what same-time historians have to say, how Christianity became what it is today, frauds in biblical archeology etc.

You can also check Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein, an Isreaelan professor in archeology. That book go through what local Archeologists in Tel Aviv know about the region and how archeology shows that little of the Old Testament is based in true history. In fact, if you follow the discoveries made through archeology with modern scientific methods, the history of the region will have to be rewritten with a very different story.

Thanks, I'll check them out.

Ah evolution and creationism, neither can be proven, specifically as to our own origin. Why? Because for evolution the giant gap known as the missing link. This gap is so huge that no othe special ancestral relationships have nearly as large a missing chasm. There is no connection to any ape ancestor, and there will never be. Humans cannot have possibly evolved fron apes, there is no scientific evidence, only reductionist rationalization(note: Our limitied scope of scientific understanding). While we are most similar in form to apes, the form might have been a blueprint/template at the most, however no natural progression led from apes to humans. There was something else at work here on earth, and (note: OUR KNOWN) science does not have the answers.

The true orgin of man is most likely a combination of both theories and something(s) else completely exclusive to both.

Uh, bb... that's complete baloney from start to finish.

Agreed, PJ. Totally, totally wrong.

I agree with PJ and Rithrandil. That was fractually wrong, meaning it was wrong in every possible angle.

buckaroobonzai said:

Humans cannot have possibly evolved fron apes, there is no scientific evidence....

Click to expand...

Well, he got that part right, anyway.

Myself, I don't feel threatened by gaps in the fossil record (some of which certainly are huge) and see no reason to deny it. That's been the case from day one. Nor do I understand why some proponents of the theory of evolution are reluctant to acknowledge it. Darwin certainly didn't seem reluctant to embrace that obvious fact.

I remember a lot of proponents of the theory of evolution assuring everyone that those gaps would be filled in nicely by now. They were wrong. So what? What's the big deal admitting it?

Really? A gap in human evolution large enough that it is inconsistent with what we would expect to find statistically? That is what you are saying, right?

Enlighten me, Squeek or bb, when is this huge gap in human evolution? I am really curious -- never too late to learn.

coyote said:

Really? A gap in human evolution large enough that it is inconsistent with what we would expect to find statistically? That is what you are saying, right?

Click to expand...

Nope. That's not what I'm thinking and not what I said. If I'm mistaken, then quote me.

coyote said:

Enlighten me, Squeek or bb, when is this huge gap in human evolution? I am really curious -- never too late to learn.

Click to expand...

Again, quote me. You seem to have put me in the same category as bb, even after I joked about his post (I even winked and everything). Or that I'm throwing down some sort of challenge for you to fight. I accept evolution; I just don't get threatened by fair criticism of it.

You might want to read this article referenced in the argumentation thread, btw.

PS. This reminds me of how some people's belief in science is like other people's belief in religion.

Squeek said:

[...]Quote me. You seem to have put me in the same category as bb, even after I joked about his post (I even winked and everything). Or that I'm throwing down some sort of challenge for you to fight. I accept evolution; I just don't get threatened by fair criticism of it.

Click to expand...

That was just my problem, where is the fair criticism? There is plenty of evidence for human evolution from early primates, by the way, so by saying that "Well, he got that part right, anyway. " you put yourself in one boat with bb on that point at least, winking or not. Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but I cannot see how the statement can be negated by irony here. Tell me if I am wrong.

Squeek said:

You might want to read this article referenced in the argumentation thread, btw.

PS. This reminds me of how some people's belief in science is like other people's belief in religion.

Click to expand...

Why should I read this article? We are not discussing climate change, after all.

Regarding the religion vs. science issue, as far as I remember at least PJ, Rithrandil, JemyM and myself have repeatedly explained the difference. Do you really want to hear it again? At least quote me, apply your own standards and demonstrate where I show blind belief in science if you have to accuse me.

It amazes me how people can be stuck early in the last century when they are discussing evolution (to avoid confusion: I mean bb, and only judging from his last post here) and how some are absolutely immune to a reasonable argument (yeah, I mean you here, Squeek, because I know you participated in all the science vs. religion debates, and I don't want to belief that you just forgot about it all).

coyote said:

That was just my problem, where is the fair criticism? There is plenty of evidence for human evolution from early primates, by the way, so by saying that "Well, he got that part right, anyway. " you put yourself in one boat with bb on that point at least, winking or not. Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but I cannot see how the statement can be negated by irony here. Tell me if I am wrong.

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, the single most common mistake people make about the theory of evolution is thinking it suggests humans evolved from apes when it fact it suggests that they evolved from a common ancestor. I didn't think I needed to spell that out -- my mistake.

I suppose if I saw it the way you just explained, I could now just as easily put you in the same boat as bb too. But why would I want to do that?

coyote said:

It amazes me how people can be stuck early in the last century when they are discussing evolution (to avoid confusion: I mean bb, and only judging from his last post here) and how some are absolutely immune to a reasonable argument (yeah, I mean you here, Squeek, because I know you participated in all the science vs. religion debates, and I don't want to belief that you just forgot about it all).

Click to expand...

You added this part while I was responding, so I just now saw it. Well, you participated too, so I guess I can level the same criticism right back at you. But that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

I think I made myself clear in that thread and this one. If not, just ask, and I'll explain. But only up to a point (sorry, I get bored and maybe a little annoyed).

Read the article, and you'll understand (or not, I guess -- I did, anyway).

Squeek said:

As far as I can tell, the single most common mistake people make about the theory of evolution is thinking it suggests humans evolved from apes when it fact it suggests that they evolved from a common ancestor. I didn't think I needed to spell that out -- my mistake.

I suppose if I saw it the way you just explained, I could now just as easily put you in the same boat as bb too. But why would I want to do that?

Click to expand...

I don't blame you for not knowing what an Ape is, given that it is often used ambiguously. Let me quote Wikipedia:

Wikipedia said:

An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.

Click to expand...

Now I am not a biologist, but I am quite certain that this includes the common ancestor of today's primates and humans. Since the common definition of Ape is ambiguous, I used "early primate" in my previous post, which is also correct.

This is an example why I don't like the kind of wishy-washy arguments of creationists, intelligent-designists etc., their statements can mean anything and nothing. Everyone can just read into them what he or she wants -- they are really the opposite of educating.

Oh, brother. OK, I suppose I'll just have to accept that.

Squeek said:

You added this part while I was responding, so I just now saw it. Well, you participated too, so I guess I can level the same criticism right back at you. But that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

In short: science works, it actually makes measurable predictions, still it does not assume that it knows the absolute truth, but constantly tests current theories for exceptions and flaws and adjusts its models to fit new results, it also does not make any a priori assumptions and favors no particular theory when several are equal given the evidence at hand. Religion can not be tested quantitatively, still religion assumes a position of absolute truth, it is an important sign of believe not to question the basic tenets of religion at least for some Christians I know personally (others do question their religion, but it is not common), it is rarely adjusted to changing circumstances, it usually has a bunch of a priori assumptions that go into it and religious wars put many scars on human history.

Squeek said:

Read the article, and you'll understand (or not, I guess -- I did, anyway).

Click to expand...

Read the article just now; being a scientists myself I know the dilemma.

Thanks for explaining those differences to me, I suppose.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll stop implying you're stupid if you'll stop implying I'm a creationist and everything else you're wrongly assuming about me.

Squeek said:

Thanks for explaining those differences to me, I suppose.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll stop implying you're stupid if you'll stop implying I'm a creationist and everything else you're wrongly assuming about me.

Click to expand...

Wrongly assuming, eh?

Alright, let's bury the hatchet.