• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why YEC can seem plausible

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Perhaps the DNA is as some people suggest, was healthier and purer during those times which should therefore follow the direction of the entropic of universe, i.e. everthing including our genetics is degrading each generation which may mean "natural selection" could sound a little iffy.


Do you mean your god was going to make DNA behave differently in a few hundred years and he never warned them?. That DNA didn’t used o mutate, but god was going to make it start, and he warned them against wearing cloth made of two different fibers but not about the *new* dangers of incest?

What was his point? He thought it would serve them right to have disabled children? And those children, what, it served them right for being born?

Wow, that’s cold.

From the very beginning God warned Adam.

God say's, "Now that you've sinned in the world, from this day onward....

Death Now Applies!
Wow, what rubbish. Genesis 3:17-19 makes clear what the punishment was for man, woman, and the serpent. Death is not included. Any other interpretation is fan-fiction.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,208
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
I was sort of hinting that rather than evolution it's devolution, that's happening through the generations, just as scientists who covers quite a few fields ( molecular-electronics to Organic chemistry) like Dr. James Tour who says (paraphrasing) " We do not "improve" genetically through time" (as the natural-selection process is said to do).
You familiar with the Covid-19 pandemic? Because the Delta strain immediately confirms the evolutionary process.

It's here as long as we are, I suppose.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,208
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
From the very beginning God warned Adam.

God say's, "Now that you've sinned in the world, from this day onward....

Death Now Applies!
Wow, what rubbish. Genesis 3:17-19 makes clear what the punishment was for man, woman, and the serpent. Death is not included. Any other interpretation is fan-fiction.

Each to his own faith.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,408
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Way back when I joined one of he old versions of the forum it was eye opening. It took a while to realize that these people are really serious. And that was scary. More so realizing they are in our Congress thinking that way.That s why I have participated here. It has to be opposed as a defense of our atheist , and others', freedoms.

Stupidity holds an actual appeal for the weak that can never be approached by honest examination of reality. Once the straw has been grasped, most would rather drown than let go.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
And after the big gulp of Kool Aid, the real magic of religion happens -- the transformations: the Bible is antislavery, although it's plainly pro-slavery; God is for love and mercy and forgiveness, although he made Hell; God isn't pro-genocide, although he commits and commands it; God hates abortion, although he kills more babies six chapters into his book than any human abortionist, ever, and later earmarks children of "the other people" for death; God loves all mankind, yet again, compiles a substantial list of peoples for his chosen people to exterminate; the chosen people are Jewish, as is God's son, who follows Jewish ritual and establishes an exclusively Jewish outreach, although you learn later that Judaism isn't actually God's religion after all, and you can forget their rituals, laws, and holy days.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,208
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
You may have to wait for a Jewish response on that.

(Israelites were the chosen ones to be precise, but yes, Jews as well as other descendant of the 12 Israelite tribes would be too)
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,208
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
the nature of creation can be accurately determined by science methods. But... not yet , just as you indicated above, " neither science nor religion...etc.."


You went off the rails there bro. You left out the fact that I wasn't referring to creation, but rather to whether there exists "a singly embodied causal entity responsible for its [creation's] existence" Why did you leave that out?

Well I was referring to creation , it could be either. The understanding, that creation is synomynous with Creator. It doesn't matter.

As I previously was trying to say: Science method for determined accuracy ... not yet made !!

Because you were looking for some way to put religion on the same footing as science. They're NOT, when it comes to learning about "The Creation".

Not sure how you think thats the case. I know they're not the same. The clue is in one one of my previous posts, saying IOW, science is a neutral tool method, theists, who can also be scientists use it, just as not-theists can use it.
 

funinspace

Don't Panic
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,195
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
Yeah, that was sort of my point. As well as later civilizations in Mesopotamia have obviously repeated and borrowed from the tales told by the earliest writers we have...aka the Sumerians.

Your post triggered something I remember some 20+ years or so ago, reminding me of people from Scotland, who wanted to learn an old Scottish heritage tradition that is forgotten in Scotland. It was an old tradition dance that is 'only retained' overseas in Nova Scotia. It's a phenomenon, that I suspect must be quite usual when people take those traditions even habits, to far off lands, whilst still retaining them many generations after.

I remember hearing of a similar thing when I went to the South Pacific many years ago. I learned there were people of a particular island, who speak with some a 200+ year old English dialect, or phrases. In the states there are places or a place (I can't remember off the top of my head) that still speak in a particular English accent .

What I'm alluding to here is: Hebrews were from the same area, and I don't think this is the type of issue that some people think, to be the "dambuster smashing" the Hebrew narrative. The stories are similar - Gilgamesh is like Nimrod of the bible, and there's the flood similarities. Hebrews coming from those areas around ancient Iraq and for them to have similar stories is not really borrowed or plagiarised imo.
No, not a dambuster smash, just another one of the 1000 pieces of the puzzle deconstructing a literal narrative...much like climate evidence, or the invisible Moses, what a weird Egyptian name...'son of'.


Like the Scotttish tradition being retained in a far off land from where it originated from and the the place of origin losing the details of traditions. I would say it was the same for the Hewbrews. Just as an instant response and quich thought, I'll also say: Text written on stones and rocks will always be dated older than texts written on papyrus and skins,in which these two writing mediums would need regular copying to new and very portable writing mediums for nomadic people to write down about their lives and customs, as they travel from place to place on great treks and journeys.
Yet Yahweh didn’t bother to nudge for a little bit stone help. The oldest Hebrew is about 3000 years old on some broken clay.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,208
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
No, not a dambuster smash, just another one of the 1000 pieces of the puzzle deconstructing a literal narrative...much like climate evidence, or the invisible Moses, what a weird Egyptian name...'son of'.

Well hopefully with each piece there's a little resolve.

Yet Yahweh didn’t bother to nudge for a little bit stone help. The oldest Hebrew is about 3000 years old on some broken clay.

This 'stone help' would be to who's advantage?

If you look at it rhis way, this stone nudging seems to be more of a disadvantage to those faiths, so to speak. The question you could ask is : Who believes in Gilgamesh now, even though he's written in stone?


It seems God of the bible versus 'all those written in stone' is the most successful, I can see why He needn't bother nudging any stones when He will have had many believe in Him... still to this day.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,929
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Vapour Canopy

For a Creationist, every solution to a problem raises two more problems.

Why did God create this life-extending canopy if he's just going to destroy it later?
https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/the-collapse-of-the-canopy-model/
Says "...the model fails biblically and scientifically..."
Also:
https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/state-of-canopy-model/
it is impressive that these calculations that make sure ancestors don't survive the flood may have been done without paper and pen.
I'm more impressed that people think the numbers can be relied upon in the first place. Some apologists wave it away under the banner of "oral tradition" while ignoring the immense problems that trying to orally retell accurate history for centuries can entail.
If you think that is impressive, what about people who think the flat earth verses can be relied upon... I am unaware of any verses in the Bible that contradict the idea that the earth is flat.
 

James Brown

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
3,572
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Atheist
If you think that is impressive, what about people who think the flat earth verses can be relied upon... I am unaware of any verses in the Bible that contradict the idea that the earth is flat.

Oh, that's easy. Just tell a YEC that the Bible is written from a flat-earth perspective. They'll quickly spout verses that show the Earth is 'round' like a ball (never mind that it could mean 'round' like a coin.) And they'll skewer any flat-earth verses by arguing A) those verses are just metaphorical or B) you're not reading them right. To admit that ancient authors may not have had the scientific knowledge that we have is unacceptable, because it undercuts the Bible being the "inspired" word of God. Lots of such arguments here.

I recall one poster on this very forum argued that God couldn't possibly tell the biblical authors the true shape of the Earth because it would have confused them beyond all reason. Apparently the ancient mind could grasp Heaven, Hell, and transubstantiation, but not the word 'sphere.'
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,929
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
If you think that is impressive, what about people who think the flat earth verses can be relied upon... I am unaware of any verses in the Bible that contradict the idea that the earth is flat.
Oh, that's easy. Just tell a YEC that the Bible is written from a flat-earth perspective. They'll quickly spout verses that show the Earth is 'round' like a ball (never mind that it could mean 'round' like a coin.)
Yeah like I said it isn't contradicting a flat earth...
Maybe you mean:

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

There is nothing in that verse that conflicts with the flat earth interpretation. If the earth is a ball, the throne would only be "above" some of the earth - to some people the throne would be to the side, and to others it would be below them. If they were grasshoppers on a flat earth, God would be able to see them, but on a ball some would be hidden by the earth. A tent could exist above a flat earth, but not really around a ball.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,408
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
And after the big gulp of Kool Aid, the real magic of religion happens -- the transformations: the Bible is antislavery, although it's plainly pro-slavery; God is for love and mercy and forgiveness, although he made Hell; God isn't pro-genocide, although he commits and commands it; God hates abortion, although he kills more babies six chapters into his book than any human abortionist, ever, and later earmarks children of "the other people" for death; God loves all mankind, yet again, compiles a substantial list of peoples for his chosen people to exterminate; the chosen people are Jewish, as is God's son, who follows Jewish ritual and establishes an exclusively Jewish outreach, although you learn later that Judaism isn't actually God's religion after all, and you can forget their rituals, laws, and holy days.

giphy.gif
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,221
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It doesn't contradict the stories.... e.g. by having Lamech only live to 777 he didn't end up surviving the flood....
Also apparently Hebrew is right-to-left because it originated when stone carving was used - it is impressive that these calculations that make sure ancestors don't survive the flood may have been done without paper and pen.

The stories not contradicting each other (which I don't even think is true) isn't the point. If I'm embellishing a story and moving around or adding details I can easily create a narrative that isn't self contradicting. What does that prove?


So you realize that a link isn't relevant, nor accurate, but decide to post it anyway? I don't get it.

And it's wrong. They're correct that the medium explains the direction of writing. But it's writing in clay with a triangular wedge. It's just easier going right to left. It's got nothing to do with hammer and chisel on stone. And it's so dumb. Why would it matter on stone if you hitting the chisel with your left or right hand? Why would it be safer going right to left?


...People don't normally have lives over 900 years....
The Bible only says that people from before the Flood lived to over 900 years. More recent people like Moses only lived to 120. So it agrees that people don't normally live that long.

But why would people before the flood live that long? It's the same species. I can't follow your logic.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,221
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
From the very beginning God warned Adam.

God say's, "Now that you've sinned in the world, from this day onward....

Death Now Applies!
Wow, what rubbish. Genesis 3:17-19 makes clear what the punishment was for man, woman, and the serpent. Death is not included. Any other interpretation is fan-fiction.

When I was in Egypt and wanting something fun to read while on the beach I picked up the same kind of absurd book on fundamentalist Islam and they were bending over backward to shoehorn modern science into the Quran.

It's the same kind of logic. You can see anything in anything if you try hard enough. Learner, it doesn't prove anything other than the author of those books are creative. But always ridiculous.

The ancients had no idea about the mechanism of evolution. Charles Darwin was himself spectacularly wrong on exactly how genes are spread. If he didn't nail it, I'm pretty sure the authors of the Bible didn't either.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,929
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
The stories not contradicting each other (which I don't even think is true) isn't the point. If I'm embellishing a story and moving around or adding details I can easily create a narrative that isn't self contradicting. What does that prove?
I think having quite a few people that die within a couple of years of the flood for ancient people isn't "easy". (especially if they aren't an expert at numbers)
Or adjusting numbers from 130+ to 30+ to make Shem be alive when Abraham was rather than dying before is also a clever thing to do....
(see post #389)
So you realize that a link isn't relevant, nor accurate, but decide to post it anyway? I don't get it.
I said it "might not" be.... but anyway it turned out to be useful after you corrected me....
And it's wrong. They're correct that the medium explains the direction of writing. But it's writing in clay with a triangular wedge. It's just easier going right to left. It's got nothing to do with hammer and chisel on stone. And it's so dumb. Why would it matter on stone if you hitting the chisel with your left or right hand? Why would it be safer going right to left?
The point is that there is some reason why it is right-to-left. I wonder how easy it is to do sums with that method.... in Hebrew....

But why would people before the flood live that long? It's the same species. I can't follow your logic.
Well a point I have been making is that YECs have basic counter-arguments for just about everything including:
https://creation.com/living-as-long-as-methuselah
That was written by a chess champion chemistry doctor
Their arguments might be flawed but the point is that they are quite comprehensive and probably make sense to YEC readers....
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,221
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I think having quite a few people that die within a couple of years of the flood for ancient people isn't "easy". (especially if they aren't an expert at numbers)
Or adjusting numbers from 130+ to 30+ to make Shem be alive when Abraham was rather than dying before is also a clever thing to do....
(see post #389)

What? I can't follow your logic


I said it "might not" be.... but anyway it turned out to be useful after you corrected me....
And it's wrong. They're correct that the medium explains the direction of writing. But it's writing in clay with a triangular wedge. It's just easier going right to left. It's got nothing to do with hammer and chisel on stone. And it's so dumb. Why would it matter on stone if you hitting the chisel with your left or right hand? Why would it be safer going right to left?
The point is that there is some reason why it is right-to-left. I wonder how easy it is to do sums with that method.... in Hebrew....

They did sums on wax tablets, or in sand or in ash dust on black tables. Cuneiform clay tablets started out as a kind of receipt and purchase contracts. You did your sums first somewhere else and then afterwards committed them to clay for posterity.



But why would people before the flood live that long? It's the same species. I can't follow your logic.
Well a point I have been making is that YECs have basic counter-arguments for just about everything including:
https://creation.com/living-as-long-as-methuselah
That was written by a chess champion chemistry doctor
Their arguments might be flawed but the point is that they are quite comprehensive and probably make sense to YEC readers....

Is this really the simplest explanation using Occam's razor you can come up with? What's the point of shoehorning modern science into a work of poetic myth written by people who weren't too careful about the details? Isn't it a better explanation that the authors of the Old Testament did what authors usually do? They didn't see themselves as historiographers. They saw themselves as hagiographers. The point was to convince other people of the greatness of their God. Not to write the actual truth.

This thread is about how YEC can seem plausible. I still don't see it.

Those explanations are bizarre and whacky.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hag.....69i57j0l9.2440j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,929
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
What? I can't follow your logic
See the video in post #389 to see why they'd change the 130+ numbers into 30+.
They did sums on wax tablets, or in sand or in ash dust on black tables. Cuneiform clay tablets started out as a kind of receipt and purchase contracts. You did your sums first somewhere else and then afterwards committed them to clay for posterity.
Ok thanks for the info.
Is this really the simplest explanation using Occam's razor you can come up with? What's the point of shoehorning modern science into a work of poetic myth written by people who weren't too careful about the details? Isn't it a better explanation that the authors of the Old Testament did what authors usually do? They didn't see themselves as historiographers. They saw themselves as hagiographers. The point was to convince other people of the greatness of their God. Not to write the actual truth.

This thread is about how YEC can seem plausible. I still don't see it.
YECs who read that link would feel somewhat secure that the Bible could be true about the long ages. Also being a chemistry PhD and chess champion shows that he is intelligent.
Those explanations are bizarre and whacky.
It looks scientific to me.... even if technically it isn't.
 

funinspace

Don't Panic
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,195
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
No, not a dambuster smash, just another one of the 1000 pieces of the puzzle deconstructing a literal narrative...much like climate evidence, or the invisible Moses, what a weird Egyptian name...'son of'.

Well hopefully with each piece there's a little resolve.

Yet Yahweh didn’t bother to nudge for a little bit stone help. The oldest Hebrew is about 3000 years old on some broken clay.

This 'stone help' would be to who's advantage?

If you look at it rhis way, this stone nudging seems to be more of a disadvantage to those faiths, so to speak. The question you could ask is : Who believes in Gilgamesh now, even though he's written in stone?


It seems God of the bible versus 'all those written in stone' is the most successful, I can see why He needn't bother nudging any stones when He will have had many believe in Him... still to this day.
Uhm...oky doky...I find that a rather odd argument. It's also getting quite away from the flood story, so I will simply add that the lack of belief in the gods of Gilgamesh's time, has little to do with the fact that they have stories written on stone/clay. FWIW, most projections show that Muslims will out number Christians within a couple decades by current trends. I don't really see how you think there are 'so many' who believe in your god today, but if it floats your boat...

Back to the world wide human killing deluge tale...even if the majority of Americans believe this silly tale as historical, I doubt a majority of the preachers/theologians do. I know the vast majority of mainstream Protestant theologians most certain don't believe it is real history. It seems that the RCC leadership is at best neutral on the subject, but they certainly don't argue for its historicity. And it seems you avoid providing a perspective on just when you think this massive event could have happened...
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
I get it that some believers have to believe in all the stories. After all, if you declare that the Flood is a) just an old folk tale or b) a metaphor (although what it says about the love god is completely at odds with him being in any sense a god of love) -- then why can't someone else declare that the resurrection of the love god's kid is just a tale or a metaphor? Such a dilemma. Such a load to push into their own children's poor brains.
I just finished a nifty, compact book called Why We Believe in God(s), by Thomson and Aukofer. It puts forth in ten short chapters how religion developed in man's evolution, and how it once served a unifying purpose in tribal groups. I can't for the life of me understand how people of 2021 find these old stories seductive. Or morally correct. Or plausible. Maybe when I'm 600 I'll build me a boat, and it will all make sense.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,208
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
From the very beginning God warned Adam.
God say's, "Now that you've sinned in the world, from this day onward....

Death Now Applies!
Wow, what rubbish. Genesis 3:17-19 makes clear what the punishment was for man, woman, and the serpent. Death is not included. Any other interpretation is fan-fiction.

When I was in Egypt and wanting something fun to read while on the beach I picked up the same kind of absurd book on fundamentalist Islam and they were bending over backward to shoehorn modern science into the Quran.

Opinion? That wasn't an opinion, it is a straight up reading of Genesis 3. The whole 'death' punishment isn't raised once. Your interpretation is based solely on wishful thinking.

I wasn't sure whether either of you were actually serious or not trying debate this! But now, I'm going to have to believe you both have blind spots for irony and a tad less sense of humour.

BTW, I responded to this post below where it all stems from, with simillar sarcasm ... that neither of you noticed:

Do you mean your god was going to make DNA behave differently in a few hundred years and he never warned them? That DNA didn’t used o mutate, but god was going to make it start, and he warned them against wearing cloth made of two different fibers but not about the *new* dangers of incest? What was his point? He thought it would serve them right to have disabled children? And those children, what, it served them right for being born? Wow, that’s cold.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
G0d says? It is words by unknown ancient authors in cultures we really do not understand that you interest as comming from a deity.

Sata knows when you are goodand bad, so kids you better be good if you want Santa,or Sanata's agents your parents, to give you presents.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,929
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
But why would people before the flood live that long? It's the same species. I can't follow your logic.
Well a point I have been making is that YECs have basic counter-arguments for just about everything including:
https://creation.com/living-as-long-as-methuselah
That was written by a chess champion chemistry doctor
Their arguments might be flawed but the point is that they are quite comprehensive and probably make sense to YEC readers....
Is this really the simplest explanation using Occam's razor you can come up with?
When I actually read that link it looks like it is mostly pointing out problems with YEC explainations...
e.g.
"....Many creationist works from a few decades ago portrayed the antediluvian world as a paradise of sorts, horribly spoiled at the Flood. But this is not taught in Scripture...."

An excerpt that isn't critical:
"....Recent advanced computer simulations vindicate this proposal, showing that an exponential decay of lifespans fits well with accumulating mutations after the catastrophic population bottleneck at the Flood...."
What's the point of shoehorning modern science into a work of poetic myth written by people who weren't too careful about the details?....
Well....
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling says:
"...many Christians say "well it doesn't really matter - let the scientists deal with the science - we'll just focus on the gospel". But we need to remember that if Genesis cannot be trusted then how can we trust John 3:16? It is a question of all of scripture or none of scripture...."
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,285
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Is this really the simplest explanation using Occam's razor you can come up with?
When I actually read that link it looks like it is mostly pointing out problems with YEC explainations...
e.g.
"....Many creationist works from a few decades ago portrayed the antediluvian world as a paradise of sorts, horribly spoiled at the Flood. But this is not taught in Scripture...."

An excerpt that isn't critical:
"....Recent advanced computer simulations vindicate this proposal, showing that an exponential decay of lifespans fits well with accumulating mutations after the catastrophic population bottleneck at the Flood...."
What's the point of shoehorning modern science into a work of poetic myth written by people who weren't too careful about the details?....
Well....
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling says:
"...many Christians say "well it doesn't really matter - let the scientists deal with the science - we'll just focus on the gospel". But we need to remember that if Genesis cannot be trusted then how can we trust John 3:16? It is a question of all of scripture or none of scripture...."

I agree with Dr Snelling on that last point. But we disagree sharply on which option is correct; and the existence of just one contradiction, either internal to the bible, or between the bible and the reality of our universe, is sufficient to prove that I am right and he is wrong.

But there's not one such contradiction. There's hundreds of the bastards.

The Noah story alone, as we see in this thread, is fractally wrong. It's a description of events that could not possibly have occurred as described, for dozens of reasons any one of which would suffice to destroy scripture according to Snelling's argument.

It's game over. Biblical literalism is demonstably and provably nonsense.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,285
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Biblical literalism is false....but what do we get out of it as allegory or metaphor? Ethics? A moral code?

Yes. But one that's so dated as to be valueless in the modern world.

We've mostly moved past the requirement for advice on how not to mistreat our slaves.

Modern societies are far from perfect in their moral precepts, but few are as flawed as the society recommended by the fables in the bible.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,221
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I wasn't sure whether either of you were actually serious or not trying debate this! But now, I'm going to have to believe you both have blind spots for irony and a tad less sense of humour.

BTW, I responded to this post below where it all stems from, with simillar sarcasm ... that neither of you noticed:

Do you mean your god was going to make DNA behave differently in a few hundred years and he never warned them? That DNA didn’t used o mutate, but god was going to make it start, and he warned them against wearing cloth made of two different fibers but not about the *new* dangers of incest? What was his point? He thought it would serve them right to have disabled children? And those children, what, it served them right for being born? Wow, that’s cold.

??

That was not sarcasm.
That was an honest question.

You say that the DNA was going to start mutating causing birth defects among closely related parents, and that your god knew it, and he still created a flood that would cause his people to have incest for many generations. And I ask, “what was his point?”

That was not sarcasm. I am genuinely confused about this claim that your god made DNA start to create mutations. For some reason.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,929
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
You [Learner] say that the DNA was going to start mutating causing birth defects among closely related parents, and that your god knew it, and he still created a flood that would cause his people to have incest for many generations. And I ask, “what was his point?”
The problem with incest is mutations. In Noah's time not as many would have accumulated as centuries later. God only outlawed incest in Moses' time. Or so educated YECs would say.
.....Do you mean your god was going to make DNA behave differently in a few hundred years and he never warned them? That DNA didn’t used o mutate...
Well YECs would say that Adam and Eve had no mutations. Then they started to accumulate. The more mutations the more problem there is with incest.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,221
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
You [Learner] say that the DNA was going to start mutating causing birth defects among closely related parents, and that your god knew it, and he still created a flood that would cause his people to have incest for many generations. And I ask, “what was his point?”
The problem with incest is mutations. In Noah's time not as many would have accumulated as centuries later. God only outlawed incest in Moses' time. Or so educated YECs would say.
.....Do you mean your god was going to make DNA behave differently in a few hundred years and he never warned them? That DNA didn’t used o mutate...
Well YECs would say that Adam and Eve had no mutations. Then they started to accumulate. The more mutations the more problem there is with incest.


I know those are the apologetics. That’s all been posted already. That is not related to my point. My point was that in your story, your god knew this would happen, that DNA would start to mutate - indeed, according to your story your god caused it to happen - and didn’t warn anyone, and then caused a flood that created the need to engage in incest for generations.

Ridiculously, according to your chart, it happened in a single generation from typical 900 year lifespans to typical 400 and then again in a single generation to 200 years. So the ridiculous apologetiics that there was some “gradual change” is put to the lie by your own graphic.

Y’all just making shit up.

chronology_chart_from_adam_to_abraham_1.jpg
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,221
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Is this really the simplest explanation using Occam's razor you can come up with?
When I actually read that link it looks like it is mostly pointing out problems with YEC explainations...
e.g.
"....Many creationist works from a few decades ago portrayed the antediluvian world as a paradise of sorts, horribly spoiled at the Flood. But this is not taught in Scripture...."

An excerpt that isn't critical:
"....Recent advanced computer simulations vindicate this proposal, showing that an exponential decay of lifespans fits well with accumulating mutations after the catastrophic population bottleneck at the Flood...."


Yes, it's an old pagan trope that survived in Christianity.

Its the idea that life doesn't have to be so hard. If we all just got our shit together and were kind to eachother we can have the good times back. It's a handy frame narrative for building a religious community.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age

In classical Greek mythology, the Golden Age was presided over by the leading Titan Cronus. In the Bronze Age, when men became violent and greedy,

European pastoral literary tradition often depicted nymphs and shepherds as living a life of rustic innocence and peace,

I don't think the story, in any version, was ever intended to be taken litterarily

What's the point of shoehorning modern science into a work of poetic myth written by people who weren't too careful about the details?....
Well....
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling says:
"...many Christians say "well it doesn't really matter - let the scientists deal with the science - we'll just focus on the gospel". But we need to remember that if Genesis cannot be trusted then how can we trust John 3:16? It is a question of all of scripture or none of scripture...."

Last year a friend of mine was dying of cancer. One day she had a meltdown. I grabbed her and hugged her tight. She begged me to let her live. As if I was a god. She said she didn't want to die. I told her everything is going to be all right. Soon she calmed down.

That's all that Biblical passage is. It's comforting words to a distressed soul. But sensible and mentally stable people know we won't live for ever. No matter how much we might need it.

Which makes sense when you think about what the Bible is. It's something to turn to in a time of need. It's words of emotional support if you are in a crisis.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,929
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
....I know those are the apologetics. That’s all been posted already. That is not related to my point. My point was that in your story, your god knew this would happen, that DNA would start to mutate - indeed, according to your story your god caused it to happen - and didn’t warn anyone, and then caused a flood that created the need to engage in incest for generations.
The curse/fall involved many things including thorns and painful childbirth.
Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
Ridiculously, according to your chart, it happened in a single generation from typical 900 year lifespans to typical 400 and then again in a single generation to 200 years. So the ridiculous apologetics that there was some “gradual change” is put to the lie by your own graphic.
Actually most of the older Bible manuscripts don't fully support that chart, instead they point to this one in post #389:
attachment.php

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genesis_numbers

The mechanism involves mutations and the effect of mutations isn't completely gradual (I mean with incest the effect of mutations can vary a lot)
And at any point in history lifespans can often vary a lot (e.g. 20%+) even though they theoretically should be pretty constant.
 
Last edited:

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,221
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I just learned why there's so many stoic ideas in Christianity. S:t Paul and Seneca (famous Stoic philosopher) were close friends and we have a bunch of Teit correspondence saved.

Christianity is like flypaper. Any other religion or major intellectual thinking that comes close to it is effortlessly absorbed into it.

Creationism and Biblical litteralism is a result of the Enlightenment. Its confusing science and religion and thinking that the Bible must be science.

Atheists often make fun of the Bible for this reason. They point out inconsistencies and laugh. As if that proves anything. Its not that kind of book.

Treating the Bible as literally true cheapens it imho.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,208
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
I wasn't sure whether either of you were actually serious or not trying debate this! But now, I'm going to have to believe you both have blind spots for irony and a tad less sense of humour.

BTW, I responded to this post below where it all stems from, with simillar sarcasm ... that neither of you noticed:

Do you mean your god was going to make DNA behave differently in a few hundred years and he never warned them? That DNA didn’t used o mutate, but god was going to make it start, and he warned them against wearing cloth made of two different fibers but not about the *new* dangers of incest? What was his point? He thought it would serve them right to have disabled children? And those children, what, it served them right for being born? Wow, that’s cold.

??

That was not sarcasm.
That was an honest question.

Ok you weren't being sarky, but I did know it was an honest question. I merely answered with a similar (mocking) undertone.

You say that the DNA was going to start mutating causing birth defects among closely related parents, and that your god knew it, and he still created a flood that would cause his people to have incest for many generations. And I ask, “what was his point?”

"After the flood, incest for many generations" is a false notion for intenttion, a misleading representation.

Anyway our friend 'excreationist' has given a good explanation, mutation before and after the flood, which I'll borrow as the response here. To which I must mention, excreationist, as the name suggests, is not a YEC or theist, and he doesn't agree with the theology, which most of us know by now. But he is honest with his fair analysis, to sujects of relating texts and other relating aspect in their context, highlighting the easy to understand concept of mutations and it's implications.

That was not sarcasm. I am genuinely confused about this claim that your god made DNA start to create mutations. For some reason.

Like the above: I thought I detected a mocking undertone but I still took this to be a serious question.

And so, I'm wondering. Were you confused because you thought I was making some claim, as if, word for word verbatim I got the explanation for DNA because it's written in the bible? Please tell me that's not so - not you too? :rolleyes:

I got the idea for 'DNA doesn't get better' from people like scientist Dr. James Tour! I mentioned him a few times already.
 
Last edited:

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,208
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
The point I forgot to mention to all this as you ask. 'Death came into the world' because man was tainted from the beginning. Sins are forgivable and Adam and Eve seem to be remorseful. God pitied them, made them garments and still allowed them to live, rather than erase them there and then. 'Be frutiful and multiply'

summary in short: 'Death comes into world' simply implies we have limited life spans now. 'It is appointed that man must die once' Heb 9.27. Man is no longer perfect, he's tainted. I'm taking to the idea as some theists suspect through their continous scrutinized study... the perspective that through Eve, by tasting the forbidden fruit first, who was not alone but without Adam, ultimately produced Cain. Then Adam tasted the forbidden fruit with Eve (being her second time) produced Abel. This would mean in context, Cain would therefore introduce another set of DNA into the mix - adding on top of the very little mutations, lessing the issues for having children - not being genetically full brother to Abel and the rest of the siblings.

(not to mention other gene-pool interference from those who left their heavenly states going into the daughters of men etc..)

John 8:44

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Behaving like Cain IOW
 
Last edited:

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
Death came into the world because man was tainted from the beginning. Sins are forgivable and Adam and Eve seem to be remorseful. God pitied them, made them garments and still allowed them to live, rather than erase them there and then.

Then the fault lies ONE HUNDRED PERCENT with the creator in the story.
If man was 'tainted' at the outset, then the Hebrew war god who designed man MADE THEM THAT WAY. (BTW, he also made leukemia, ALS, the tuberculosis bacterium, the leprosy bacteriium, cystic fibrosis, the tsetse fly, the deer tick, so his "pity" on mankind is questionable, in terms of this story.)
If he had chosen to "erase them there and then", it would have been a case of "Well, I fucked up. As a creator, I'm a dope!" And of course, he's supposed to know the full arc of the future, so he could foresee that his tainted beings would need some tough love in advance of creating them.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,208
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
There's a few things I'd like respond to.. But at this moment... Wouldn't you blame the Creator in this story anyway ?
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The thread is about science vs creationism.

Based on qualitative scientific tools YEC can not be true.

Creationists try to debunk quantitative science in favor of a few lines in an ancient text by unknown authors.

I generally understand religion, but I do not understand the utter blind belief in ancient writings as literal. It seems like a form of mental illness. Obsessives belief and tunnel vision.

Taking metaphor and poetry as truth, akin to believing Santa existed 3000 years from now not knowing the origin of the myth.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,221
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
The curse/fall involved many things including thorns and painful childbirth.

That is a real dickish curse, innit. The “Turn the other cheek” portion of the trinity sure had a quiet little voice in this divine head.

Plus the idea that Eve got punished worse, even though it took Satan himself to trick her, while Adam got pulled into the mire by a mere woman (some “head of household,” huh? They certainly gave that job to the wrong human.)

But yeah, childbirth pains for half the human race forever. “If he takes your cloak, offer your shirt as well,”. “Shut up! Shut ALL THE WAY UP! Voices in my head! I’m doing everlasting PAIN, do you hear!?”

Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Oh, no, not whole creaation. Just women. I love the way men are like, “we were all punished,” while they step into another room for brandy while the women labor.


Ridiculously, according to your chart, it happened in a single generation from typical 900 year lifespans to typical 400 and then again in a single generation to 200 years. So the ridiculous apologetics that there was some “gradual change” is put to the lie by your own graphic.
Actually most of the older Bible manuscripts don't fully support that chart, instead they point to this one in post #389:
attachment.php


That’s the same graph, They just split up the colors in each bar to make you feel differently when you look at it. To deceive you.. Watch out for that. There’s no reason to color the pre-parent part of the line differently.

There are three obvious groups of data:
- the 900-year olds group
- the 400 year olds group
- the 200 year olds group.
- if you insist, you can call Shem the sole occupier of a 600 year old group

These changes are sudden and vast and occur in a single generation each time.

Each line represents a single human being. The life span is cut in half from Noah to his grandson. That is not a known pace for any kind of mutation. It defies evidence.

The mechanism involves mutations and the effect of mutations isn't completely gradual (I mean with incest the effect of mutations can vary a lot)



Exactly. Hence my point.
Your graph shows that your god introduced lifespan effects from DNA mutation exacerbated by incest that would cut lifespans in half in a single generation, then created a situation where incest was required for generations, and didn’t warn his chosen people.

You cannot have 8 people on the plant and not engage in incest.


And at any point in history lifespans can often vary a lot (e.g. 20%+) even though they theoretically should be pretty constant.

No. There is no point in history that lifespans changed permanently for the entire population by 20% in a single generation. Not ever.


You are making excuses for a story that has no support, even internally in your own story.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,888
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The thread is about science vs creationism.

Based on qualitative scientific tools YEC can not be true.

Creationists try to debunk quantitative science in favor of a few lines in an ancient text by unknown authors.

I generally understand religion, but I do not understand the utter blind belief in ancient writings as literal. It seems like a form of mental illness. Obsessives belief and tunnel vision.

Taking metaphor and poetry as truth, akin to believing Santa existed 3000 years from now not knowing the origin of the myth.

Yea, it's just bizarre. The only so-called evidence that they offer is that it's written in their book; and that it might be possible. That's it.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,221
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
??

That was not sarcasm.
That was an honest question.

Ok you weren't being sarky, but I did know it was an honest question. I merely answered with a similar (mocking) undertone.

You keep assigning motive to me. And then using that fabrication to justify your own bad behavior.
Is this the “eye for an eye” part of your religion, or the “turn the other cheek” part of your religion?

But in reality, you keep assigning me a motive that is not true. If you want to be snarky and mocking, do it on your own, don’t be like Adam with the apple, “she made me! Punish her with labor pains for eternity! It’s her fault! She made me!” Or like the wife beater, “I wouldn’t have hit her if she didn’t behave badly.”


It’s not a good look.

You say that the DNA was going to start mutating causing birth defects among closely related parents, and that your god knew it, and he still created a flood that would cause his people to have incest for many generations. And I ask, “what was his point?”

"After the flood, incest for many generations" is a false notion for intenttion, a misleading representation.

Can you explain how 3 sets of parents, each of whom was responsible for independent diasporas did not employ incest to procreate? I’d be interested in your math.

The sons of Ham… they became a “race,” right? Did they do this by interbreeding with their first cousins (which is incest) and therefore not become their own race, but rather all three brothers’ lines were indistinguishable? Or did they do it by separating and Ham’s kids mating with Ham’s kids (which is incest) to create a distinct race of Ham?

Either there’s no difference in any of the lineages because they did not split at the brothers and the incest was never closer than first cousins (which is incest) OR the three branches did maintain distinction - by sibling incest.

Which was it?

It is not possible to have three sibling parents populate a world without incest, though, and for many generations.

Try drawing a chart and see how you can get great-grandchildren without incest happening. (Try this same chart with Adam and Eve, by the way)


Anyway our friend 'excreationist' has given a good explanation, mutation before and after the flood, which I'll borrow as the response here. To which I must mention, excreationist, as the name suggests, is not a YEC or theist, and he doesn't agree with the theology, which most of us know by now. But he is honest with his fair analysis, to sujects of relating texts and other relating aspect in their context, highlighting the easy to understand concept of mutations and it's implications.

He has not given a good explanation.
Though if you insist on saying that your god introduced damage to his creation to cut their lifespans by 50% in a single generation, we can talk about the psychosis that would be needed to harm people so severely and permanently on a whim.

I don’t need to assign your god that level of antipathy, because I don’t find your story that anyone ever lived to be 950 years old to be the least bit compelling. But if you insist, then, yes, I see how you accuse your god of creating genetic damage to his creation to punish them for what their forebears had done. What a guy.


That was not sarcasm. I am genuinely confused about this claim that your god made DNA start to create mutations. For some reason.

Like the above: I thought I detected a mocking undertone but I still took this to be a serious question.

You thought wrong. But you couldn’t hold yourself back from judging and accusing in public and in writing. And then blaming it on me. If you want to be snarky, just own it and say, “I wanted to be snarky.” Don’t pretend I made you do it. You did it because you wanted to.

And so, I'm wondering. Were you confused because you thought I was making some claim, as if, word for word verbatim I got the explanation for DNA because it's written in the bible? Please tell me that's not so - not you too? :rolleyes:

I got the idea for 'DNA doesn't get better' from people like scientist Dr. James Tour! I mentioned him a few times already.

Does every change in the universe come from your god, or not? I thought you were saying that your god introduced DNA mutation because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, having been utterly naive and also left alone in the room with this terrible device unsupervised and in the company of a known felon.

You may have gotten the idea for 'DNA doesn't get better' from people like scientist Dr. James Tour! but you were presenting a creation story where your god is the designer of everything, and that mutations did not exist until he got angry. You then correlate genetic mutations (created by your god) with the exacerbating influence of incest (the need for which is created by your god). And then you said that entropy in the universe (created by who, now?) causes everything to degrade, and I wondered, on top of all the above whether you were making the claim that your god was degrading as well.

And now I also wonder, is there entropy in your heaven?
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,221
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
The point I forgot to mention to all this as you ask. 'Death came into the world' because man was tainted from the beginning. Sins are forgivable and Adam and Eve seem to be remorseful. God pitied them, made them garments and still allowed them to live, rather than erase them there and then. 'Be frutiful and multiply'

Why would a designer promote replication of the flawed design, rather than making a new set that is not flawed, and letting Adam and Eve be doting aunt and uncle?

There are people who carry devastating genetic defects. They often choose to adopt, or dote on their nieces and nephews rather than create a suffering being. The story could have had the god create a new set without the defect that cause the rage-inducing error in the garden - but instead, it created more rage-inducing, increasingly defective future generations, which it then drowned most of and then further damaged the remainder.

It’s a pretty weird story.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,285
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
??

That was not sarcasm.
That was an honest question.

Ok you weren't being sarky, but I did know it was an honest question. I merely answered with a similar (mocking) undertone.

You say that the DNA was going to start mutating causing birth defects among closely related parents, and that your god knew it, and he still created a flood that would cause his people to have incest for many generations. And I ask, “what was his point?”

"After the flood, incest for many generations" is a false notion for intenttion, a misleading representation.

Anyway our friend 'excreationist' has given a good explanation, mutation before and after the flood, which I'll borrow as the response here. To which I must mention, excreationist, as the name suggests, is not a YEC or theist, and he doesn't agree with the theology, which most of us know by now. But he is honest with his fair analysis, to sujects of relating texts and other relating aspect in their context, highlighting the easy to understand concept of mutations and it's implications.

That was not sarcasm. I am genuinely confused about this claim that your god made DNA start to create mutations. For some reason.

Like the above: I thought I detected a mocking undertone but I still took this to be a serious question.

And so, I'm wondering. Were you confused because you thought I was making some claim, as if, word for word verbatim I got the explanation for DNA because it's written in the bible? Please tell me that's not so - not you too? :rolleyes:

I got the idea for 'DNA doesn't get better' from people like scientist Dr. James Tour! I mentioned him a few times already.

You know that 'scientist' is an umbrella term that includes a wide range of disparate specialisms, right?

And that a scientist speaking outside his field isn't notably more competent than any random person?

According to Wikipedia, "scientist" Dr James Tour is a materials science, nanoengineering and computer science specialist, and has research interests in Chemistry, Materials, Electronics, Nanotechnology, and Graphene.

Before making poorly informed claims about DNA, he really should have spoken to colleagues who know something about Molecular Biology, Genetics, or Evolutionary Biology. Because his claim (if indeed he made it) is laughably incorrect.

DNA most assuredly does get better, and the mechanisms by which it does this are very well understood. They include selection, recombination, apoptosis, and a range of 'proofreading' and 'auditing' pathways during cell division that reduce mutation rates and repair damage done by free radicals and other reactive species.

But you would no more expect a materials scientist to know about these things than you would expect a paediatrician to know how to treat basal cell carcinoma; or a plumber to know how to wire an electrical distribution board.

When the county inspector condemns your substandard electrical installation, that was installed by a plumber, he won't be impressed that you got a 'tradesman' to do the work, because you asked the wrong kind of tradesman.

Equally, I am deeply unimpressed by the opinion of 'scientist' Dr Tour with regards to DNA, because he's the wrong kind of scientist.

You should try not to be so easily impressed by titles. Having a doctorate implies expertise in the field in which that doctorate was granted; But tells you nothing about a person's knowledge outside that field. being a scientist doesn't make anyone a universal authority; Nor does it mean that every utterance that they make is scientific.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,929
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Oh, no, not whole creaation. Just women.
Even Genesis 3 also says "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it" and "all creation" can include natural disasters, meat-eating animals and mutations.
That’s the same graph, They just split up the colors in each bar to make you feel differently when you look at it. To deceive you.. Watch out for that. There’s no reason to color the pre-parent part of the line differently.
No they are fundamentally different. In the earlier graph Shem and Abraham are alive at the same time - in the other one Shem dies 500 years before Abraham was born....
There are three obvious groups of data:
- the 900-year olds group
- the 400 year olds group
- the 200 year olds group.
- if you insist, you can call Shem the sole occupier of a 600 year old group

These changes are sudden and vast and occur in a single generation each time.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genesis_numbers
In the Septuagint the lifespans from Noah onwards are more gradual...
950
600
565
460
460
404
339
339
330
304
275
175
Each line represents a single human being. The life span is cut in half from Noah to his grandson.
In the Septuagint is is 40% less (950 to 565). As usual there were some counter-arguments from YECs but then they eventually hit a wall....
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
Genesis 6:3 can be read as God prophesying that Pre-Flood longevity would soon come to an end.

After the flood, incest for many generations" is a false notion...

Well, that depends on how strictly you define incest and consanguinity.

A lot of bible critics (who rant and rave about incest) simultaneously argue in favour of same-sex marriage saying how homosexual behaviour is such a natural thing in the animal kingdom. Well, incest is a natural thing too.

...And rape.
...And infanticide.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,285
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Genesis 6:3 can be read as God prophesying that Pre-Flood longevity would soon come to an end.

After the flood, incest for many generations" is a false notion...

Well, that depends on how strictly you define incest and consanguinity.

A lot of bible critics (who rant and rave about incest) simultaneously argue in favour of same-sex marriage saying how homosexual behaviour is such a natural thing in the animal kingdom. Well, incest is a natural thing too.

...And rape.
...And infanticide.

You're missing the point.

Nobody's arguing that same sex marriage is supported by the fact that homosexuality is natural.

They are arguing that the religious claim that homosexuality is unnatural is false. Which it is.

The problem for the religious opponents of consenting adults marrying whomever they choose is that there really aren't any good arguments against it, so they're left with arguments from an authority that their opponents don't accept as an authority; Or claiming that the whole business is unnatural, which is both a falsehood and a fallacy.

To mistake their rebuttal of a poor argument by their opponents as an argument for their position is yet another error. Don't you people ever get anything right?
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Genesis 6:3 can be read as God prophesying that Pre-Flood longevity would soon come to an end.

After the flood, incest for many generations" is a false notion...

Well, that depends on how strictly you define incest and consanguinity.

A lot of bible critics (who rant and rave about incest) simultaneously argue in favour of same-sex marriage saying how homosexual behaviour is such a natural thing in the animal kingdom. Well, incest is a natural thing too.

...And rape.
...And infanticide.

We are part of the animal kingdom. Unless you want to debunk generics.

Typical Christian conservative reasoning, false equivalence. Comparing homosexuality to incest and rape.

If Noah is true, then we all have incestuous origins. That is the point.

I don't thnk the abbcint Jews prohibited abortion by inducng labor.
 
Top Bottom