Time zones and the creation story

[bilby]

cool! Interesting to know. Someone get Neil deGrasse Tyson up to speed too! Them scientists sure LOOK like they just make shit up.

All humans make shit up sometimes.

Science is the only methodology that allows people to know things instead - but scientists don't only (or even usually) apply science to everything that they believe.

 

[Gun Nut]

so when a scientist says global warming is real and man made, we shouldn't necessarily believe they know what they are talking about.. they may not be "applying science to everything that they believe". So, science is just what scientists believe or not.. like religious studies are to Theologians. same same.

 

[bilby]

so when a scientist says global warming is real and man made, we shouldn't necessarily believe they know what they are talking about.. they may not be "applying science to everything that they believe". So, science is just what scientists believe or not.. like religious studies are to Theologians. same same.

Nope. Science isn't a population, it's a methodology.

Scientists are people who are more likely than others to apply that methodology. But scientists themselves will tell you (indeed, it's the motto of the Royal Society) - Take nobody's word for it.

If you want to apply science to a question, then that's rule number one.

Having faith in science is insane. Check it out for yourself.

If they don't tell you how to do that, they're not doing science.

If you find a theologian who takes pains to explain (in detail) how to prove them wrong, let me know. (Not holding my breath).

Nobody is asking you to believe in global warming (OK - lots of people are; but no scientists). The scientists are telling you it's happening, and how they know, and how to check it out for yourself.

If you don't bother to check it out for yourself, then you are not entitled to any opinion at all on the matter.

(Hint - checking it out for yourself doesn't include listening to others or trying to decide who to believe - it involves actually doing the experiments yourself).

 

[Gun Nut]

so when a scientist says global warming is real and man made, we shouldn't necessarily believe they know what they are talking about.. they may not be "applying science to everything that they believe". So, science is just what scientists believe or not.. like religious studies are to Theologians. same same.

Nope. Science isn't a population, it's a methodology.

Scientists are people who are more likely than others to apply that methodology. But scientists themselves will tell you (indeed, it's the motto of the Royal Society) - Take nobody's word for it.

If you want to apply science to a question, then that's rule number one.

Having faith in science is insane. Check it out for yourself.

If they don't tell you how to do that, they're not doing science.

If you find a theologian who takes pains to explain (in detail) how to prove them wrong, let me know. (Not holding my breath).

Nobody is asking you to believe in global warming (OK - lots of people are; but no scientists). The scientists are telling you it's happening, and how they know, and how to check it out for yourself.

If you don't bother to check it out for yourself, then you are not entitled to any opinion at all on the matter.

(Hint - checking it out for yourself doesn't include listening to others or trying to decide who to believe - it involves actually doing the experiments yourself).

Cool... What climate related experiments have you personally performed that has confirmed the claims you have heard? I think this is very interesting stuff.
In Church, when the pastor says that Book XX says YY, I can go look it up for myself and verify... but I trust the source of information so I don't feel I have to. Too bad you can't really trust scientific sources and have to always recheck them, though. This is why people don't believe what they don't want to believe.. because it is too hard to confirm... so emotions are all we got.

 

[phands]

so when a scientist says global warming is real and man made, we shouldn't necessarily believe they know what they are talking about.. they may not be "applying science to everything that they believe". So, science is just what scientists believe or not.. like religious studies are to Theologians. same same.

Abject twaddle.

Science studies reality and tries to explain it with hypotheses, theories and experiments. If those experiments refute the hypothesis or theory, it is eventually modified or discarded. That "eventually" can be a long time, and some people never give up on bad theories, like anti-vaxxers, flat earthers or creationists or homeopaths and chiropractic quacks..

Theology pretends to study the absurd and ties itself in over-complex knots to justify and "prove" the obviously non-existent. When their ideas are demonstrably wrong, they tend to double down on the impossible, and swathe it in deeper layers of lunacy, and they never give up on the basic wrongness of starting out to justify an already presumed conclusion.

Science is useful...theology is pretentious garbage.

 

[Gun Nut]

Science is useful...theology is pretentious garbage.

both are useful... except when science is wrong. Even "wrong" theology can be useful. Maybe it really isn't a good idea to literally "turn the other cheek" while you are being pummeled by a bad actor... but the notion of being forgiving is generally a good one.
Which part of the theory that opioids serve as good treatment for lower back pain is anything but completely wrong and only harmful?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

In Genesis 1, the days involve an "evening" and "morning" but only some parts of the earth would be in that time of day - areas on the opposite side would have the opposite time of day. So which part of earth is it in respect to? The garden of Eden? But dry land only appeared on the third day, so initially the focus of the evening/morning would have been under water!

But if the earth is flat and the whole earth is the same time of day then there is an absolute "morning" or "evening"... maybe that's what the writer had in mind.

Those stories were told around campfires for thousands of years before Moses (allegedly) wrote them down. I wouldn't take them literally. Most cultures have creation stories and, oddly enough, flood stories.

 

[skepticalbip]

In Genesis 1, the days involve an "evening" and "morning" but only some parts of the earth would be in that time of day - areas on the opposite side would have the opposite time of day. So which part of earth is it in respect to? The garden of Eden? But dry land only appeared on the third day, so initially the focus of the evening/morning would have been under water!

But if the earth is flat and the whole earth is the same time of day then there is an absolute "morning" or "evening"... maybe that's what the writer had in mind.

Those stories were told around campfires for thousands of years before Moses (allegedly) wrote them down. I wouldn't take them literally. Most cultures have creation stories and, oddly enough, flood stories.

Flood stories being found in almost all cultures isn't really that surprising. At the end of the last ice age when all the glaciers melted there were massive floods everywhere. Rivers would have overflowed their banks as the melt water rushed downstream. Also sea levels rose by about 100 meters so any settlements near oceans would have been inundated.

 

[Gun Nut]

In Genesis 1, the days involve an "evening" and "morning" but only some parts of the earth would be in that time of day - areas on the opposite side would have the opposite time of day. So which part of earth is it in respect to? The garden of Eden? But dry land only appeared on the third day, so initially the focus of the evening/morning would have been under water!

But if the earth is flat and the whole earth is the same time of day then there is an absolute "morning" or "evening"... maybe that's what the writer had in mind.

Those stories were told around campfires for thousands of years before Moses (allegedly) wrote them down. I wouldn't take them literally. Most cultures have creation stories and, oddly enough, flood stories.

Flood stories being found in almost all cultures isn't really that surprising. At the end of the last ice age when all the glaciers melted there were massive floods everywhere. Rivers would have overflowed their banks as the melt water rushed downstream. Also sea levels rose by about 100 meters so any settlements near oceans would have been inundated.

... but you don't believe in a global flood, nuh uh... flooding happened everywhere and was written about... but call it a global flood and panties get a twistin.

 

[skepticalbip]

Flood stories being found in almost all cultures isn't really that surprising. At the end of the last ice age when all the glaciers melted there were massive floods everywhere. Rivers would have overflowed their banks as the melt water rushed downstream. Also sea levels rose by about 100 meters so any settlements near oceans would have been inundated.

... but you don't believe in a global flood, nuh uh... flooding happened everywhere and was written about... but call it a global flood and panties get a twistin.

There were massive floods. Around the world there are different stories and legends by different cultures and religions attributing and describing the cause of the floods each experienced. Is there any reason anyone would accept the Biblical description and explanation and ignore all the other stories of other cultures?

There were floods and different cultures incorporated stories about them into their religions and lore.

A fairly recent finding of an ancient underwater city off Dwarka, India is a find that may provide evidence of the basis of the Hindu flood stories.

ETA:
Are you saying that early cultures did not make up stories to explain the reasons for unusual events? Are you saying that there wasn't flooding at the end of the last ice age?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

In Genesis 1, the days involve an "evening" and "morning" but only some parts of the earth would be in that time of day - areas on the opposite side would have the opposite time of day. So which part of earth is it in respect to? The garden of Eden? But dry land only appeared on the third day, so initially the focus of the evening/morning would have been under water!

But if the earth is flat and the whole earth is the same time of day then there is an absolute "morning" or "evening"... maybe that's what the writer had in mind.

Those stories were told around campfires for thousands of years before Moses (allegedly) wrote them down. I wouldn't take them literally. Most cultures have creation stories and, oddly enough, flood stories.

Flood stories being found in almost all cultures isn't really that surprising. At the end of the last ice age when all the glaciers melted there were massive floods everywhere. Rivers would have overflowed their banks as the melt water rushed downstream. Also sea levels rose by about 100 meters so any settlements near oceans would have been inundated.

Agreed. That was about 11,500 years ago. Additionally, about 13,000 years ago there was a massive extinction event with large animals like wooly mammoths and saber tooth tigers becoming extinct, along with an unknown number of humans who had spread across the planet at the time. This extinction event has been attributed to a comet impact:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...confirm-comet-hit-Earth-13-000-years-ago.html
Ancient symbols carved into stone at an archaeological site in Turkey tell the story of a devastating comet impact that triggered a mini ice age more than 13,000 years ago, scientists believe.

Evidence from the carvings, made on a pillar known as the Vulture Stone, suggests that a swarm of comet fragments hit the Earth in around 11000 BC.

One image of a headless man is thought to symbolise human disaster and extensive loss of life.

The devastating event, which wiped out creatures such as woolly mammoths, also helped spark the rise of civilisation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are also stories about talking birds. Stories told over centuries and written down, just like 'global flood.'

Like how Raven used to be white, until he stole Fire, and it burned his feathers black as he carried it to humans. This is not taught as a fact in history OR science classes. Because there's no actual evidence for it, not because any panties get twisted.

 

[Gun Nut]

There are also stories about talking birds. Stories told over centuries and written down, just like 'global flood.'

Like how Raven used to be white, until he stole Fire, and it burned his feathers black as he carried it to humans. This is not taught as a fact in history OR science classes. Because there's no actual evidence for it, not because any panties get twisted.

I have personally heard birds talk and also understand words.

I had a book as a child called Aesop's Fables. I only remember a couple of the 'creation' stories, but they were great. "How the tiger got it's spots" type of things. Before the story of Evolution was written, these stories satisfied children's questions while also teaching important lessons about life.... morality, fairness, consequence... evolution teaches us to just make sure we fuck before we die.

 

[atrib]

Flood stories being found in almost all cultures isn't really that surprising. At the end of the last ice age when all the glaciers melted there were massive floods everywhere. Rivers would have overflowed their banks as the melt water rushed downstream. Also sea levels rose by about 100 meters so any settlements near oceans would have been inundated.

... but you don't believe in a global flood, nuh uh... flooding happened everywhere and was written about... but call it a global flood and panties get a twistin.

People tend to build settlements near rivers and lakes. Rivers and lakes undergo periodic flooding. Therefore, it seems reasonable that many cultures around the world report stories of floods. The fact they report it also tells us there were survivors around to tell the story.

The Biblical flood is an entirely different matter, if that is what you are talking about. There is no evidence that such a flood occurred within recent written history (last 10,000 years or so) because there is no evidence in the geologic column, in the fossil record, and most significantly, in the genomes of any living thing (can you imagine the bottlenecks we would see in the genomes if everyone and everything were descended from a single mating pair just a few thousand years ago?). None of the cultures around the world with written history/mythology going back to the time, like the Chinese or Egyptians or in the Indian subcontinent apparently noticed that they had been covered by a mountain of water, and they kept going about their business anyway. We find evidence for a relatively modest extinction event (modest compared to the Biblical flood) caused by a meteor about 64 million years ago all over the planet (K-T extinction event), yet we have no evidence for a flood that apparently elevated water levels to tens of thousands of feet above current sea levels from a few thousand years ago? Where did this water come from? Where did this water go? The simple answer is that the story of the Biblical flood is not true.

 

[atrib]

There are also stories about talking birds. Stories told over centuries and written down, just like 'global flood.'

Like how Raven used to be white, until he stole Fire, and it burned his feathers black as he carried it to humans. This is not taught as a fact in history OR science classes. Because there's no actual evidence for it, not because any panties get twisted.

I have personally heard birds talk and also understand words.

I had a book as a child called Aesop's Fables. I only remember a couple of the 'creation' stories, but they were great. "How the tiger got it's spots" type of things. Before the story of Evolution was written, these stories satisfied children's questions while also teaching important lessons about life.... morality, fairness, consequence... evolution teaches us to just make sure we fuck before we die.

Kind of like how gravity teaches us to jump off a cliff and die?

Evolution is a description of how the natural world works. It tells no stories, and it makes no judgements.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are also stories about talking birds. Stories told over centuries and written down, just like 'global flood.'

Like how Raven used to be white, until he stole Fire, and it burned his feathers black as he carried it to humans. This is not taught as a fact in history OR science classes. Because there's no actual evidence for it, not because any panties get twisted.

I have personally heard birds talk and also understand words.

I had a book as a child called Aesop's Fables. I only remember a couple of the 'creation' stories, but they were great. "How the tiger got it's spots" type of things. Before the story of Evolution was written, these stories satisfied children's questions while also teaching important lessons about life.... morality, fairness, consequence... evolution teaches us to just make sure we fuck before we die.

Kind of like how gravity teaches us to jump off a cliff and die?

Evolution is a description of how the natural world works. It tells no stories, and it makes no judgements.

Certainly never claims to offer morality or fairness tales.
So I can't understand why so many idiots think they've made some telling point by 'discovering' that it doesn't do what it never said it would.

 

[atrib]

so when a scientist says global warming is real and man made, we shouldn't necessarily believe they know what they are talking about.. they may not be "applying science to everything that they believe". So, science is just what scientists believe or not.. like religious studies are to Theologians. same same.

Nope. Science isn't a population, it's a methodology.

Scientists are people who are more likely than others to apply that methodology. But scientists themselves will tell you (indeed, it's the motto of the Royal Society) - Take nobody's word for it.

If you want to apply science to a question, then that's rule number one.

Having faith in science is insane. Check it out for yourself.

If they don't tell you how to do that, they're not doing science.

If you find a theologian who takes pains to explain (in detail) how to prove them wrong, let me know. (Not holding my breath).

Nobody is asking you to believe in global warming (OK - lots of people are; but no scientists). The scientists are telling you it's happening, and how they know, and how to check it out for yourself.

If you don't bother to check it out for yourself, then you are not entitled to any opinion at all on the matter.

(Hint - checking it out for yourself doesn't include listening to others or trying to decide who to believe - it involves actually doing the experiments yourself).

Cool... What climate related experiments have you personally performed that has confirmed the claims you have heard? I think this is very interesting stuff.
In Church, when the pastor says that Book XX says YY, I can go look it up for myself and verify... but I trust the source of information so I don't feel I have to. Too bad you can't really trust scientific sources and have to always recheck them, though. This is why people don't believe what they don't want to believe.. because it is too hard to confirm... so emotions are all we got.

With humans involved no process can be perfect. But the scientific method is the best tool we have, because published scientific work is subject to peer review and independent verification, and bad ideas and bad data eventually get filtered out. If a scientist or group has a bias which effects the results they report, it will eventually get discovered when more people study the problem and run independent experiments or observations. Theories are not set in stone, they can be updated and even rejected if new evidence exposes problems with the underlying concepts or conclusions. This is true whether the original work was generated by a lowly PhD student or a subject matter expert with 40 years of experience in the field. This is a strength of the scientific method, not a weakness.

And yes, we do have to rely on the works and opinions of others when it comes to most things. This is because it usually takes decades of education and experience to gain the knowledge to become a subject matter expert in any field. Most people don't have the time to become subject matter experts in more than 1 or 2 subjects in their lifetime (Leonardo was a rare exception). Being able to rely on a system of checks and balances is a necessity, and while these systems are not always perfect, they are far better than any other system we have been able to come up with.

 

[atrib]

Kind of like how gravity teaches us to jump off a cliff and die?

Evolution is a description of how the natural world works. It tells no stories, and it makes no judgements.

Certainly never claims to offer morality or fairness tales.
So I can't understand why so many idiots think they've made some telling point by 'discovering' that it doesn't do what it never said it would.

If you are not able to argue against the facts of the matter, you find something else to complain about. I rarely see creationists debating the actual findings of evolution research and their interpretation in biology textbooks. Ask them about the expression of Hox genes and how they are controlled by genetic switches, and they go dark. Instead, I see them telling us evolution is immoral or evil or that it reduces human dignity or some crap like that. I don't understand how any of those things are true; what does human dignity have anything to do with the fact we are descended from apes that lived in trees, or that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos? If anything, we should be proud of the journey our ancestors went through and what we have been able to achieve as a species despite having descended from arboreal apes with cranial capacities of 500cc or less. It is incredibly arrogant and foolish to believe that we are somehow special, that the universe was built just for us, based on nothing more than some Bronze Age stories.

 

[Gun Nut]

Ask them about the expression of Hox genes and how they are controlled by genetic switches, and they go dark.

what is the relevance of colinearity with respect to the homeobox? you brought it up. If you can't explain it fully, then you can't argue for or against it. Your own words, please, no copy and paste.

Please also explain the relevance of Jesus referring to Himself as the Morning Star in Revelations. Again, your own words, no copy and paste. If you can't fully explain this then you have no ability to argue any facts of the matter.

I expect you will "go dark".

 

[atrib]

Ask them about the expression of Hox genes and how they are controlled by genetic switches, and they go dark.

what is the relevance of colinearity with respect to the homeobox? you brought it up. If you can't explain it fully, then you can't argue for or against it. Your own words, please, no copy and paste.

Why? What purpose would it serve? Most creationists do not want to get into a debate about the actual science, because most creationists do not know the science. If you want to talk about the science, start a separate thread and lay out your objections to modern evolutionary theory.

Please also explain the relevance of Jesus referring to Himself as the Morning Star in Revelations. Again, your own words, no copy and paste. If you can't fully explain this then you have no ability to argue any facts of the matter.

Why? What purpose would it serve? I am not trying to write a dissertation on the literary qualities of Biblical prose. What I am doing is pointing out some of the factual errors that creationists make. Like claiming that the planet was covered by a flood of water that covered the top of the mountains.

I expect you will "go dark".

Ironic. You should go back and look at the posting history of creationists on this board.

So, are you going to respond to what I had said in response to your post? Or defend your (apparent) claim that the flood of Noah was real, if that is what you were claiming?

Kind of like how gravity teaches us to jump off a cliff and die?

Evolution is a description of how the natural world works. It tells no stories, and it makes no judgements.