|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Could We Have Been Lied To? (genesis 1-3)

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

June 2nd, 2009, 14:35
Originally Posted by Zaleukos View Post
Well you have this atheist's respect for asking yourself the question of this thread, that is a pretty big step…
Thank you.
Damian Mahadevan is offline

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch

#41

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,201

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 20:55
Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan View Post
Fair enough. The more I know. But that tree from Sweden is a bit suss though, why not use dendrochronology to date it?
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?
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.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch

#42

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

June 3rd, 2009, 02:58
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
(things about early Mesopotamian myths)
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.

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe
KazikluBey is offline

KazikluBey

KazikluBey's Avatar
Sentinel

#43

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 525

Default 

June 3rd, 2009, 10:45
Originally Posted by KazikluBey View Post
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.
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.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
Last edited by JemyM; June 3rd, 2009 at 11:04.
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#44

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

June 3rd, 2009, 13:35
Thanks, I'll check them out.

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe
KazikluBey is offline

KazikluBey

KazikluBey's Avatar
Sentinel

#45

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 525

Default 

June 3rd, 2009, 23:17
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.

To sum it up, I feel our space program ended up like this. "It's one small step for man. One giant leap for man kind. Oops I fell on my butt after that leap and can't get up anymore."
buckaroobonzai is offline

buckaroobonzai

buckaroobonzai's Avatar
VR nomad

#46

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hungary and USA
Posts: 224

Default 

June 3rd, 2009, 23:20
Uh, bb… that's complete baloney from start to finish.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#47

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

June 3rd, 2009, 23:22
Agreed, PJ. Totally, totally wrong.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

I bent my wookie

#48

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299

Default 

June 3rd, 2009, 23:28
I agree with PJ and Rithrandil. That was fractually wrong, meaning it was wrong in every possible angle.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#49

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

June 3rd, 2009, 23:41
Originally Posted by buckaroobonzai View Post
Humans cannot have possibly evolved fron apes, there is no scientific evidence….
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?

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#50

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

June 4th, 2009, 01:47
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 is offline

coyote

coyote's Avatar
Sentinel

#51

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 459

Default 

June 4th, 2009, 02:16
Originally Posted by coyote View Post
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?
Nope. That's not what I'm thinking and not what I said. If I'm mistaken, then quote me.

Originally Posted by coyote View Post
Enlighten me, Squeek or bb, when is this huge gap in human evolution? I am really curious — never too late to learn.
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.

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Last edited by Squeek; June 4th, 2009 at 02:26.
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#52

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

June 4th, 2009, 02:51
Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
[…]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.
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.

Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
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.
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 is offline

coyote

coyote's Avatar
Sentinel

#53

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 459

Default 

June 4th, 2009, 03:03
Originally Posted by coyote View Post
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.
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?

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#54

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

June 4th, 2009, 03:15
Originally Posted by coyote View Post
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).
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).

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#55

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

June 4th, 2009, 03:21
Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
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?
I don't blame you for not knowing what an Ape is, given that it is often used ambiguously. Let me quote Wikipedia:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.
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.
coyote is offline

coyote

coyote's Avatar
Sentinel

#56

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 459

Default 

June 4th, 2009, 03:25
Oh, brother. OK, I suppose I'll just have to accept that.

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#57

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

June 4th, 2009, 03:40
Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
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?
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.

Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
Read the article, and you'll understand (or not, I guess — I did, anyway).
Read the article just now; being a scientists myself I know the dilemma.
coyote is offline

coyote

coyote's Avatar
Sentinel

#58

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 459

Default 

June 4th, 2009, 03:46
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.

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#59

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

June 4th, 2009, 03:54
Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
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.
Wrongly assuming, eh?

Alright, let's bury the hatchet.
coyote is offline

coyote

coyote's Avatar
Sentinel

#60

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 459
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Could We Have Been Lied To? (genesis 1-3)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:12.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch