…and this is a 
One of the most common strategems for reconciling evolution and the Bible that I've run into is the Day-Age hypothesis, the claim that each of the seven 'days' of the book of Genesis represents one of God's days, which doesn't have to be 24 hours long, but could be millions or billions of years instead. All you have to do is stretch the timescale of Genesis to fit the geological timescale, and voilà, it's a perfect metaphorical description of the very same processes science has described. Why, those old Hebrews couldn't have known all that geology and astronomy, therefore they must have received insider information from their creator.
Believe me, I've heard it a thousand times, and I'm not exaggerating when I say they claim it was impossible for the authors of the Bible to have known all that information that lines up so precisely with our modern understanding of the universe's origins. Really. Would I lie to you? The Washington Post has a perfect example in a short piece by the biologist Andrew Parker (who we have encountered before). He actually has respectable credentials in the field, has written an interesting (but terribly flawed) book about the Cambrian explosion, and is definitely not a young earth creationist. Those guys are deeply crazy.* Which, when you look at how nutty Parker's views are, means that we haven't even begun to plumb the depths of derangement of which these people are capable yet.
I recently volunteered to place the creation account of Genesis 1 side-by-side with our new scientific understanding of the history of life and the universe. Excepting the absurd fiction that the world was created in seven days, I found an eerily-close match. Amazingly, the precise wording of the Bible's first page, and the events inferred and the sequence with which they are placed, tells the story of life's history according to our current best scientific understanding. That a man without scientific knowledge , should write such a thing in 700 BCE is almost scary. And then another man of similar stock placed it on the first page of his people's most important book. This is what I call a genesis enigma.
On the Bible's first page 'Let there be light' is mentioned twice, why? Recently science has provided answers in both physics and biology -- the formation of the sun followed by the introduction of vision -- and I played some scientific role in the second.
In Genesis 1, emphasis is placed on sea creatures, despite this biblical author being landlocked with little or no knowledge of marine life. Who in their right mind would have placed these center stage? The more I looked, the more the Genesis creation story seemed unlikely to be the result of a lucky guess. That got me thinking a few winters ago.
Are those words really sacred, in some way? As a scientist not in the habit of contemplating the divine, I was later surprised to discover within religion some good old rationality.
No, Genesis 1 does not line up with reality. Try it yourself.
|
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. |
Day 1 God makes heaven and a formless earth, and light and dark, apparently in that order. This isn't right. The earth is a relatively late arrival; there was roughly 9 billion years between the Big Bang and the accretion of the earth. That's a mighty big gap, and a false statement in the very first sentence. Now if it said, "God created matter and energy," maybe then it would fit. I don't get all the "waters" stuff. The early earth wasn't covered in water. |
|
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. |
Day 2 God creates heaven by separating waters. Again, water all over the place. This doesn't fit any physical explanation for the history of the universe or the earth. Note that what is being described here is an aquatic universe in which god creates a solid firmament to separate the earth and its atmosphere from a great watery ocean in which it is floating; this isn't your modern astronomy by any stretch of the imagination. |
|
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. |
Day 3 God raises up the land on a watery earth, and then he creates trees and grasses. Again, flowering plants and grasses are late arrivals in the history of life on earth. Grasses arose in the Cretaceous and flourished in the Neogene; angiosperms evolved in the Jurassic. This puts them well after fish (day 5), for instance. |
|
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. |
Day 4 Finally, God gets around to making the sun and the moon and the stars. You are all aware that these astronomical objects preceded the appearance of life, I presume? |
|
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. |
Day 5 God creates everything that flies in the air and lives in the water. Isn't this just a little weird? It's a distinction entirely by habitat, ignoring the fact that whales, for instance, first evolved on the land and then moved into the sea. Birds are also more late arrivals on the evolutionary scene. Most important: squid are completely neglected in this scheme. Apparently, they are just random members of the lumpeninvertebrata, snapped into existence as part of a great sushi gemisch, and not even worth mentioning. Blasphemy! |
|
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. |
Day 6 God creates terrestrial animals, and people. The people are put in charge. It's a rather shameful compression of time. After all, the first terrestrial animals (something like the trigontarbid fossils from about 440 million years ago) preceded humans by about, oh, 440 million years. I guess they were wandering about masterless for a great long time. |
God slacked off on the seventh day, so we'll ignore it. | |
And don't even get me started on Genesis 2, in which a male human is created first, and all the other animals afterwards, and a woman was an afterthought.
Parker is way off base — there is no way to line up Genesis with any modern, scientific history of the universe. Why, it looks to me like raw guesswork building on a Middle Eastern oral and written tradition that had no privileged information about cosmology at all!
Parker's other assertions are way off, too. He has a bit of an obsession with the evolution of vision, so what he's trying to claim is that what is being described is first the physical creation of light on Day 1, and then Day 4 is a metaphor for the evolution of vision, which allowed creatures to see the light. Which doesn't make sense. There were no creatures with eyes on Day 4, just a lot of plants sitting in the dark waiting an indeterminate time (but more than 24 hours) for some way to photosynthesize.
I'd be more impressed if the Old Testament scribes had written, "And lo, on the fourth day, God created opsin and G proteins, and enabled a primitive signal transduction pathway, and God called the signal transduction pathway vision, and God saw that it was good." That would be scary accuracy. "God poofed the Moon into existence and stuck it to the firmamement with a handy pushpin,", not so impressive.
And what the heck is Parker smoking that he thinks this text puts emphasis on sea creatures, placing them center stage? They get one clause in one sentence on Day Five, the only ones specifically mentioned are whales, and they're sharing billing with birds!
I think Andrew Parker is going to have to be my favorite example of an intelligent, educated man who has been totally god-whacked into madness by religion, seeing stuff in texts that is simply not there.
*By the way, talking to the ordinary creationist, the kind of person you might bump into the coffee shop, you will sometimes find ones who endorse the Day-Age theory. I've even encountered a few grad students who use it to reconcile their beliefs with science. However, by far the most common kind of creationist haunting our country today is the young earth creationist, who dispenses with all that conciliatory fol-de-rol and simply declares science completely wrong in its interpretations and that the earth is literally and actually less than ten thousand years old and that God did it all in precisely six 24 hour days. This has been a trend; anecdotally, I've found the YECs are much more common and much more arrogant in their beliefs now than, say, twenty years ago. It's what Answers in Genesis promotes, after all.
For the sake of completeness, I'll mention that another way to reconcile the Bible with an old earth is the Gap Theory. This idea states that there is an undescribed gap in the history of Genesis 1, right after "God created the heaven and earth", in which the earth was riven with catastrophe and chaos, when there were fallen angels and giants and dragons fighting against the legions of heaven, and during which geology happened. This sounds like a very fascinating period that would make a great fantasy novel, but it didn't involve humans, so God didn't think we'd be interested…so he starts with the restoration of order and the creation of Eden, which occured 6000 years ago. Personally, I have never met a single creationist who endorsed this interpretation, although I know they're out there: this was the favored explanation in the Scofield Bible so beloved of fundamentalists for so long.
Another by the way, that a lot of people haven't figured out yet: fundamentalism does not demand belief in young earth creationism. This is another trend, fueled by people like Ken Ham, who insist that the only true fundamentalist doctrine is one that involves a literal 6000 year old earth created in a literal 6 days. They seem to be winning the propaganda war, too, since many creationists and evolutionists alike think that fundamentalism and young earth creationism go hand-in-hand.
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 1, 2009 7:12 PM
Why, it's uncanny---how much someone will struggle to try to save the Bible against the masses of contrary evidence.
But then, Meyer's "reasoning" in his latest book is about as big on sloppy "analogies" and as devoid of any meaningful cause-and-effect analysis as day-agers' junk is, so I don't think they're really improving.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Texas Reader | December 1, 2009 7:12 PM
The more educated ones go with the long day idea - they better than to espouse the literal 7 days.
Posted by: Zeno | December 1, 2009 7:18 PM
Although young earth creationism is barking mad, it seems to be making inroads within the creationist community. Is this because they're just so noisy (e.g., Ken Ham, Ray Comfort) and the believers get uncomfortable accepting a timeline measured in billions of years, or does it just look like YEC has become the dominant strain because its exponents are so noisy (op. cit.)?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 1, 2009 7:20 PM
No, actually, it's the reverse, I think.
The more educated ones steeped in theology go with the Gap theory.
The ones who aren't informed about the dogma of their fundie church waffle about with Day-Age, because they're actually thinking and trying to fit their bible and science together.
The seven-day literalists are mostly just following the marching orders of the prominent creationist organizations.
Posted by: Mike in Maine | December 1, 2009 7:24 PM
Hi. I run into this "argument" frequently in my literature class. (I teach the bible from a secular perspective here in Maine.)
To "interpret" the word day to mean "age," one has to deny the plain meaning of the text:
The 6-day creation story was written by an anonymous scribe literary scholars simply call "P" because he was presumably from a Priestly caste. One of his signature stylistic tics is his use of repetition. (The whole of Genesis Chapter One through Chapter Two line three reads like the lyrics of a hymn, with repetition and refrain.)
Notice how, after each and every day, the closing lines are:
And the EVENING and the MORNING were the first day.
And the EVENING and the MORNING were the second day.
This is the "refrain."
It's clearly a "day" meaning twenty-four-hour period. It's even expressed in Judaic terms, where the day begins in the evening, not at midnight as we are accustomed to today.
One someone brings up the "day" = "age" interpretation, I simply respond, "Fine. Then what do "EVENING" and "MORNING" mean?"
That shuts them up.
Posted by: Samphire | December 1, 2009 7:27 PM
"And God saw the light, that it was good."
But what about the rest of the electromagnetic rainbow? Did he think X-rays, cosmic radiation or the band on which Fox News broadcasts good also? If so, perhaps he hasn't seen the light.
Posted by: Biology Blogger | December 1, 2009 7:29 PM
PZ,
I actually think it is possible for this hypothesis. Since the sun, according to creationists, was created on the 4th day, thus the concept did not exist for the previous 3 days!
Posted by: Biology Blogger | December 1, 2009 7:31 PM
typo: "...the concept of a day did not exist..."
Posted by: Biology Blogger | December 1, 2009 7:34 PM
But of course according to the Anthropic principle, and basic astrophysics, life would not have been able to exist in those 3 days. So gutted. But I think creationists could put any loony pseudoscience to fill those gaps as usual.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 1, 2009 7:34 PM
If someone is going to ignore the science and just preach myth, fine. They'd be wrong, but at least it's consistent. But this is so obviously trying to push a square peg into a round hole, and beyond a couple of superficial statements there is nothing! Worse than nothing, it'd downright contradictory. It doesn't fit, pretending that it does is just as absurd as ignoring it altogether.
Posted by: mothra | December 1, 2009 7:35 PM
It must have been tough on all those photosynthesizing plants to have been created in the age before sunlight. As an entomologist, I have to lodge a protest with the creator as he forgot to mention butterflies in the bible- I guess I'm goin' to hell for studying satanic things.
Posted by: PaulM
|
December 1, 2009 7:36 PM
The long day/day-age version is pretty hard to reconcile with the actual words of genesis, in which evening and night of each day is specifically mentioned (unless, of course, the earth was rotating once every half billion years or so back then... in which case half of the earth was frozen and dead at any given time, and half must have been nice and toasty).
Land plants - including angiosperms (fruit-bearing trees) - predate all life in the sea. And of course, if days are ages, then those plants survived hundreds of millions of years without the sun. Perhaps that's not a problem as the sun is not responsible for day and night according to the genesis account. The sun merely 'rules' the day, and only does so from the fourth day. But day and night themselves had existed right from day 1. Nothing there that contradicts current science is there?
Of course if you reject the fossil record, uniformitarianism, basic physiology, phylogenetics, embryology, cosmology, physics and common sense, then it is quite possible.
Posted by: Tacroy | December 1, 2009 7:36 PM
Actually it makes perfect sense - you see, not only does each of God's hours last for far more than one hour, they also happen whenever God wants them to happen. Thus, the hour that God spent making the sun, moon and stars happened between the hours that God spent separating light from dark and the hour He spent making the Earth. Although God spent one day making the firmament, the hours of that day did not necessarily happen one after the other!
It's all entirely logical (if you have a concussion.)
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 1, 2009 7:36 PM
If you really want an ancient book waaay ahead of its time check out Euclid's Elements. Even with its errors and hidden assumption it's still quite amazing that human produced this so long ago.
Genesis on the other hand reads more like ancient mythology than modern astrophysics. If the ancient Hebrews were producing the Einstein field equations I might consider believing they were getting their information from a supernatural source. These people however lived in primitive times so I can sort of understand how they believed it. Any adult who believes it in this day and age is being willful ignorant.
Posted by: Mike in Maine | December 1, 2009 7:38 PM
By the way... you say:
Genesis Chapter Two, beginning with line 4b, "In the day that YHWH created earth and skies," is the point at which the ancient editors of the Torah inserted a story by a second scribe, a different person from "P." This anonymous writer is simply referred to as "J" because this writer suddenly begins using the name YHWH for the deity rather than the plain "GOD" of "P." (In the King James translation, "YHWH" is rendered as "LORD" because you can't say "YHWH"!)
Anyway, this is the beginning of the oldest prose narrative in Western Civ. I find this a fascinating puzzle. Turns out the entire TORAH (That is, the books Genesis through Deuteronomy) were written by at least four scribes at four different periods of history, and their scrolls were edited together by multiple redactors around and after the time of the Judahites' exile to Babylon.
But what I originally wanted to bring up is the hilarious sense of humor the writer "J" had. You mention that YHWH (LORD) created Eve as an "afterthought." But BEFORE that, YHWH created the beasts "from the ground" to find Adam a HELP MEET! Failing to find a "help meet" for Adam among the animals, YHWH finally creates EVE.
Took YHWH awhile, I guess, to figure out that Adam wasn't into bestiality.
Posted by: Andrew | December 1, 2009 7:39 PM
The Greek philosopher Anaxagoras had a frighteningly prescient view of the universe, yet no theist argues that he was divinely inspired. In the 6th century BC, he saw the universe as beginning from an infinitely small, infinitely dense state, totally in accordance with modern cosmological theory. This great philosopher refutes the claims of the religious who claim there is truth in their holy texts, yet it is not even necessary to believe that Anaxagoras was divinely inspired, only a great thinker.
Posted by: Pete | December 1, 2009 7:39 PM
The first sentence of Genesis 1 is translated differently in the Jewish Study Bible, the Harper-Collins Study Bible and the New English Bible. In these translations, the world is already a watery chaos when creation starts. This reading is consistent with other Near Eastern creation stories.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 1, 2009 7:42 PM
I see the gap theory as the only way to account for Genesis's failure to specifically mention crinoids, trilobites, or ammonoids.
Posted by: Mike in Maine | December 1, 2009 7:45 PM
Yes, and what's more, GOD DIVIDES the waters from the waters, in the same way the ancient Near Eastern god Marduk DIVIDES the body of the sea goddess TIAMAT and forms the earth and skies from her divided body.
(While googling the names to refresh my memory of the story, I discovered there's a band named TIAMAT DIVIDED!)
Posted by: Mrs Tilton
|
December 1, 2009 7:47 PM
they are just random members of the lumpeninvertebrata, snapped into existence as part of a great sushi gemisch
Roy Edroso uncorks this sort of thing once or twice a week, often prompting me (amongst others of his readership) to propose marriage. Now Roy has a rival. I don't think you should be mocking the "God slacking off at the week-end" part of the narrative, though; it's the one realistic and persuasive element their story has.
Posted by: Alessa Mendes | December 1, 2009 7:48 PM
"That a man without scientific knowledge , should write such a thing in 700 BCE is almost scary."
That's not what I find scary...
Posted by: Carlie | December 1, 2009 7:50 PM
It's often a midway stopping point. I went from 7-day creationist (when I was a teenager) to day-age, realized those didn't match up, dabbled a bit in gap...then decided fuck it, nothing about it made sense.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid
|
December 1, 2009 7:50 PM
Well, you do have to admit it would be an eerily close match, if in fact it were an eerily close match. So let's just say that is is, because that way people can feel good about their lack of scientific knowledge. Plus, it's close enough for god work.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 1, 2009 7:53 PM
That a man with scientific knowledge should write such a thing in 2009 is mind boggling.
Posted by: Ben | December 1, 2009 8:00 PM
You've all seen this reworking of the Genesis story to account for scientific truths, haven't you?
It's still a religious account, but it's not so loony anymore.
Revised Reality Version
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 1, 2009 8:01 PM
No! No! No! The first chapter of Genesis is about baseball.* It starts "In the big inning...." How more plain can that be?
*I realize that certain Brits and Aussies will claim this refers to cricket. How foolish is that nonsense, I ask you?
Posted by: PixelFish | December 1, 2009 8:03 PM
Most of the Mormons I know that care about this stuff (my dad and my seminary teachers, for example)tend to go with a weird hybrid of Day-Age and Young Earth, in that when talking about man and god's days, they tend to ascribe 1000 years per day, but still insist that God used evolution as a mechanism for creating the world until it was ready for man and THAT took millions of years. No, there's no fucking logic to it at all, other than they heard conflicting views, and sorta smashed the two together to get what they wanted. "Oh, one of God's days is like a thousand years, that makes sense!" "Well, of course, God used evolution to create the world--he operates under the light and knowledge of scientific principles."
Posted by: JHS
|
December 1, 2009 8:04 PM
The mental knots people will tie themselves in to validate their little slice of 2,000 year old lore never fails to amuse, but whatever they call themselves, the fact remains that they are simply trying to score one for an ideology that is supported by zero evidence. They WANT it to be true, and everything they do flows from the infantile desire to get their way and have their outlook legitimized.
Now, I'm sure plenty of creationists of whatever stripe would turn around and snark something about "Darwinists" doing the same thing, blah blah atheism is a fundamentalist religion blah blah BS. But what they fail to grasp is that science *begins* with evidence. Darwin didn't wake up one morning in his cabin on the Beagle and think, "I'm such a cheeky bastard, I think I'll try to convince people that their great-uncle Silas was really a monkey," and set out from there, bending every fact and observation to some crackpot, subjective ideology. He simply observed, recorded, and let nature do the walking, so to speak.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
December 1, 2009 8:04 PM
If you had no other criticism of Parker, that one would be enough.
Posted by: mothra | December 1, 2009 8:05 PM
It could be worse. People could be home schooling their children to shield them from the evils of science. They could have special gatherings to foster beliefs. They could make decisions for themselves and others based on bronze-age writings. They could even start wars by saying it was what god told them to do. /sarc
Posted by: Zoniedude | December 1, 2009 8:08 PM
Hey! Cut the guy some slack. They were using clay tablets back in the day. God was telling him all this stuff and he's scribbling as fast as he can. God's on his case "You getting all this down?" and he's doing his best. Then when he's done he's got a stack of clay tablets this high to carry back and, well, he tripped so they fell all over the place. Okay he forgot to number them when he made them and they got a little out of order. Picky picky. They didn't have spell check on those tablets either. God tried to explain relativistic time dilation to the guy, but hey, he's just a shepherd working on the side. So he got a little confused on the light stuff. So cut the guy some slack, okay?
Posted by: Sgt. Obvious
|
December 1, 2009 8:09 PM
Off topic, but important Poll Time. Fox "News" poll for Shepard Smith:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/shepard-smith/index.html
Send 30,000 troops
Send more than 30,000
Pull most troops out now
Keep small group to focus on Usama
It's already going toward option 3, thanks to the work of out temporary allies in Anonymous, but they've already reset the poll once for getting the "wrong" answers. I'm calling for an Anon/Pharyngula alliance. Hit this poll with option 3, and trump these clowns.
Posted by: Ganf17 | December 1, 2009 8:13 PM
What I can't wrap my head around is how young-earth creationists reject a billions-of-years creation and yet fully accept the idea of an eternity with god.
The original creation was very good, got ruined by Adam(Eve), required god to kill himself so that at some future time he could create a new heaven and earth that was very good.
I just don't get it. Sorry Ken.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | December 1, 2009 8:14 PM
Genesis doesn't specifically mention the creation of rabbits and how they were not only "good" but "adorable", so it was obviously not inspired by a proper god.
Posted by: Felix | December 1, 2009 8:17 PM
Where does Parker get that claim from, that the writer would have been 'landlocked, with little or no knowledge of marine life'? Odds are that during early settlement of the region, relatively few people would have lived further from the sea than about 20 miles. This means that merchants would have been able to deliver a nice variety of seafood using their carts (if they owned a horse or mule) to almost any settlement within less than half a day.
And PZ correctly notes that Genesis shows exactly what Parker assumes: little or no knowledge of marine life. What a fantasist. If anything, the scary part is the state of his mind.
Posted by: Mark | December 1, 2009 8:18 PM
I get it!
All of that water early on is actually meant to be--hydrogen. The ancients wouldn't have understood "hydrogen", so it was dumbed down to be "water" (AKA hydrogen hydroxide).
We all now know that the early universe was loaded with hydrogen. And the firmament is the heavier elements forming from the hydrogen.
Oh my god. It's all so clear now.
Posted by: Thomas Galvin | December 1, 2009 8:19 PM
Similar to Carlie, I went from "seven literal days" to "day/age" to "gap theory" to "reality."
Posted by: Feynmaniac, OM | December 1, 2009 8:22 PM
On works actually ahead of their times: Lucretius' De rerum natura (On The Nature of Things). It talks about atomic materialism, indeterminism and about the mind being just matter. While it doesn't get everything right (atoms don't "dissipate into smoke when a person dies") it does try to argue against superstitious thinking in favor of explaining things as natural phenomena.
In fact, we don't need to invoke the supernatural to explain why Lucretius' work was ahead of its time. It was a combination a bright guy standing shoulder of giants (i.e, the Greek Epicureans) and some blind luck.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
December 1, 2009 8:32 PM
What’s really scary is that none of the creationists I know care whether the biblical account squares with science. God, you see, is outside man’s understanding, and they have to get ready for church, Praise Jesus. What’s important is getting your soul saved so that you don’t spend eternity in hell. Now that’s logical.
Posted by: Rorschach | December 1, 2009 8:37 PM
Feyny @ 24,
*giggle*
@ 32,
While you posted this, the music is playing on the end of president's speech announcing 30000 more troups.
Kind of settles the issue.
Posted by: Sgt. Obvious
|
December 1, 2009 8:43 PM
I know, I was watching it. For the record, he signed it Sunday, he's just formally announcing now. It's still a chance to crash a Fox poll, you know what answer they're expecting. Plus, they've already reset the results once, so a lesson needs to be taught.
Posted by: nejishiki | December 1, 2009 9:02 PM
@Pixelfish #27
The Mormon church has some nebulous beliefs about Creation/evolution. I think a lot of it comes from the influence the physicist Henry Eyring had on Mormon theology. He was a great scientist and a church member, and was able to browbeat the church hierarchy into excepting evolution and rejecting literalism. I think they only accepted halfheartedly, though.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 1, 2009 9:09 PM
For completeness: Brian Switek at Laelaps gave Parker a good thwack yesterday.
Posted by: HP | December 1, 2009 9:16 PM
This is totally a side note, but all this talk about Genesis got me wondering just what kind of whales would've been known to Bronze Age nomads on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. I mean, I know about Mediterranean dolphins and porpoises, but an inland sea nearly cut off from the ocean except for the Straits of Gibralter? How many large whales could there be?
So I googled "Mediterranean whales," and Holy Cats! -- Did you know that there are freakin' Fin Whales off the coast of Greece? Today? And sperm whales? Given the kind of human activity shit that's gone down in the Mediterranean for the last 5,000 years, I wouldn't be surprised if there used to be baleen whales stacked up like cordwood from Beirut to Alexandria 3,000 years ago.
I gots me some learnin' to do.
Posted by: Good Reason | December 1, 2009 9:16 PM
@ PixelFish #27 and nejishiki #42
Day-age creationism came into vogue about the same time as Joseph Smith was writing the Book of Moses, and what do you know, it shows up there (referring to 'times' instead of 'days').
Gee, how about that.
Posted by: tsg | December 1, 2009 9:17 PM
And, on a line perpendicular to the above, is the "created with apparent age" crowd. Unfortunately the argument can be used to support any age so one has to wonder what made them decide on 6000 years ago[1] and not, say, last Thursday. Of course, the fact they always refuse to admit is that it makes their god a liar.
[1] Outside of the bible, that is. If they're going to get it from the bible (or admit to it anyway) why not just be a seven-day literalist?
Posted by: ChrisH
|
December 1, 2009 9:18 PM
About the only way that I could lump Gen 1, Gen 2 and reality together in any vaguely explicable fashion is approximately 45 minutes after taking a 'heroic' (to quote Hunter S Thompson) dose of hallucinogens.
Or... well... by being an illiterate goat herder who was preached 'the truth' but my priests.
Shit, now why did the RC church spend all those years supressing those translations of the bible into the verncular? Oh yeah. Because people might try to understand it!
Posted by: Paul Murray | December 1, 2009 9:29 PM
You mean "'Gods' (plural)" of P. They were all polytheistic heathen back in them days.
My private theory FWIW is that Gen 1 tells a common regional creation myth, how the gods created the world and the races of man - each in his own image and likeness (that's why black people are black, dontcha know). Gen 2 tells the story of one particular one of the elohim and his little eugenics experiment.
Where did Cain's wife come from? Well, the elhohim who lived next door to Yhwh was named Nod, and Cain went to his place.
It all makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | December 1, 2009 9:34 PM
Think of all the branches of science that would have to be utterly wrong for this to be literally right:
-- Chemistry (because carbon-14 dating can date stuff older than ten thousand years, for starters)
-- Physics (because it deals in processes where ten thousand years isn't even a thousandth of an eyeblink)
-- Astronomy (see physics)
-- Archaeology (you don't need to study the Palaeolithic period, sweetie: it never happened)
And that's just off the top of my head.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
December 1, 2009 9:53 PM
Personally, I love love love the Day-Age Hypothesis, because of what it so deliciously implies. Basically if you assume God's days are these eon-type things, there is literally an absentee God. We are like seven minutes into his morning by "God's time" and all those people praying to him and asking him to hate their various enemies and the like are basically like that annoying boss who keeps trying to call you during your vacation to ask where various files are.
Also Jeezy Creezy? Not on the list, nor is his appearance to Moses meaning he couldn't even dictate the book that is supposedly the word of God, because, hey hey, pretty much still asleep.
Basically in order to protect their religion, they would have to destroy all the things they like about it. Delicious.
Posted by: Phro
|
December 1, 2009 10:03 PM
Sure and the Kojiki is an acurate description of the creation of Japanese archipelago because it mentions lava falling in the ocean and cooling. And the Tao te ching is all about particle physics because it discusses uncertainty.
Why don't these guys look at other great, ancient (kinda) works that were clearly taught by a deity??
Posted by: TheBlackCat | December 1, 2009 10:11 PM
A claim I see a lot is that the "let there be light" bit was referring to the big bang. Ignoring the bit about the waters, there was no light for hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang. The universe started out completely opaque. It wasn't until things cooled down enough for neutral atoms to form that light was able to move around.
Posted by: golemxiv | December 1, 2009 10:18 PM
This one is on related topic - how would Genesis look, if it was physically correct. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qymoktf0wY&feature=PlayList&p=ED1D50480C90098E&index=41
Posted by: arachnophilia | December 1, 2009 10:38 PM
fundamentalism may not demand a literal six-day creation reading of the book of genesis, but sound exegesis does. the refutation of the day-age nonsense above is part of a decent demonstration why.
a good refutation of the "gap theory" is next: genesis 1 and genesis 2 are necessarily the beginning, as indicated by context and grammar. for instance, genesis 1 begins, b'reshit bara elohim et ha-shamim va-et ha-aretz, which is more properly translated (cf, nJPS) "when god began creating the skies and the ground," and is a dependent clause. it states that this is the beginning of the action of creation -- and the act that follows next, the creation of light, is what began it. when rendered as the traditional "in the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth" full stop, it allows for the insertion of a gap. the hebrew allows no such space.
after that, we can talk about the reason genesis 1 was written: to define the structure of the week and the observance of time. it's an etiology of shabbat, and explains (among other things) why the days start at sun-down instead of sun-up. viewed as a direct etiology of the division of time, it's easy to see that genesis 1 intends a literal 7-day week.
the problem, of course, comes in trying to reconcile this ancient text with modern scientific understanding. this is a kind of fool's errand: genesis is just simply wrong on the factual account, and shouldn't be read as a science book to begin with. at least the young-earthers have the sense to recognize that the two cannot be reconciled, and the balls to go with the obviously silly choice.
it's a story -- if this were any other set of ancient myths, we'd never be arguing about this. we'd read it, go "uh-huh, in this story, a god, probably yahweh, creates the earth in six days" and move on with our lives.
Posted by: Gerald M. Jones | December 1, 2009 10:59 PM
Seeing PZ's analysis of Genesis, it occured to me:
PZ's gotta have a copy of the Bible. He damn sure ain't got it memorized, so he's gotta have a copy. Would his copy be vandalized, torn, cut, crapped on? No, like any reference book and any good reference book keeper, it must still be in good shape, at least readable. Maybe PZ has several copies, several versions. Book of Morman, maybe, KJV, NES, disc, whatever other versions. Do you have "The Ten Commandments" with Charlton Heston?
How bout it PZ? Can we have a peek at your bookshelf?
Posted by: magobsession | December 1, 2009 10:59 PM
Felix @ #35
That was definitely what leapt out at me right away - the idea that the human authors of Genesis would have had "little or no knowledge of marine life" strikes me as utterly absurd. Any idea what he might have been thinking of as a pretext for this claim?
Maybe someone will have a more credible / up to date source, but I remember reading that about half of the human population (currently) lives within 100km of the ocean.
Posted by: Marcus | December 1, 2009 11:15 PM
You know how people squint when they're trying to look at something even though squinting just fuzzes things up? I think some people squint with their brain when they read that book.
Posted by: Dan-O | December 1, 2009 11:20 PM
Regarding 'Whales':
Not that this matters terribly, but the 'Whales' in the translation are 'Taninim' in the original Hebrew, which today mean crocodiles. I don't think anybody knows what exactly the original 'Taninim' referred to, but the consensus is it's something like 'Sea-monster', referencing ancient Mesopotamian myths about wars between the creator God and Gods of the sea.
Posted by: Hannah | December 1, 2009 11:28 PM
To me, the funniest thing about the idea that god literally created everything in 6 days is that, even when you ignore geological history, it is impossible because a "day" is defined by the earth going around the sun. Hence there could be no days until god created the sun. This always seemed relatively simple to me and made me wonder how people could envision a literal day occurring before god started creating things.
Posted by: magobsession | December 1, 2009 11:34 PM
I like that. Not only is a literal reading of Genesis not accurate as a matter of fact, it's logically impossible!
Posted by: 386sx | December 1, 2009 11:36 PM
On the Bible's first page 'Let there be light' is mentioned twice, why? Recently science has provided answers in both physics and biology -- the formation of the sun followed by the introduction of vision -- and I played some scientific role in the second.
Wow, that's quite a coincidence that you played a scientific role in the second. How awesome!!
"A coincidence is a small miracle in which God chooses to remain anonymous." — Author unknown!!
Posted by: magobsession | December 1, 2009 11:40 PM
Does he mean to say that he introduced vision??
Posted by: 386sx | December 1, 2009 11:59 PM
Does he mean to say that he introduced vision??
I think he meant to say that God introduced vision, and that he [Parker] had a scientific role in theories that are related to the introduction of vision, therefore he [Parker] had a scientific role in Jesus "poofing" eyeballs.
Posted by: Karl Haro von Mogel | December 2, 2009 12:02 AM
Clearly, God resides in Fluidic Space.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Fluidic_space
Maybe he is from Species 8472?
Posted by: 386sx | December 2, 2009 12:08 AM
In Genesis 1, emphasis is placed on sea creatures, despite this biblical author being landlocked with little or no knowledge of marine life.
Of all the things God decided to make the biblical author not ignorant about, even though the author had little or no knowledge of them, God chose sea creatures. And then God chose to let the biblical author remain ignorant about all the other stuff.
Posted by: glacierman | December 2, 2009 12:21 AM
Does anyone have a reasonable scientific explanation of the time line of the 7 day creation to the day of the eating of the fruit and how long Adam and Eve were on the earth while it was in a perfect state?
Could this account for say, a billion or three, years?
Posted by: Julian | December 2, 2009 12:28 AM
Typical mythical ignorance on the part of creationists. Seriously; one almost would think they didn't pay any attention in their freshman classics course!
The reason that a landlocked writer would place the "waters" before the land, is precisely because he has no experience with, and therefore fears, the "waters". To ancient man, whose only water craft was the dingy, water was a chaotic, formless, death trap. Land, with its stability, and the food, shelter, and wealth it provided, was, by comparison, the very definition of security. Early people were perfectly capable of understanding that everything comes from something and that complexity arises from simplicity, and so, in nearly all creation stories, it is the shapeless, chaotic, "nothingness" of the seas that is the original form of reality. It is from this formlessness which the security of land; its form, its shape, its stability, arises, and only through a great struggle against that formlessness, literal that "Kaos" in the Greece, that the stability, form, and beauty of land can be won.
In almost every creation myth, it is the Chaos, the Seas, which are slain by their children, the first Willed Beings, the gods, and it is from their now quiescent corpses that the lands are shaped. The waters precede the land because, in the mind of early man, it was inconceivable that something as varied, complex, and safe as the land could arise before something as unknowable, formless, and deadly as the seas.
Posted by: Darkl1ght3r | December 2, 2009 12:54 AM
Awesome... I gave a presentation to my local skeptics society on this very subject (Shameless plug: BASS - Bakersfield Area Skeptics Society... FTW!). I mentioned some of the exact points PZ did. This was one of the first things that got the ball rolling on my exit from fundamentalism. I was a Jehovah's Witness, who are actually Day-Age creationists. Their interpretation is surprisingly LESS biblically sound than the literal 6-day theory.
Posted by: darkl1ght3r | December 2, 2009 1:05 AM
@#66 glacierman:
There is no "reasonable scientific" explanation for the timeline in Genesis. But I'll try to answer your question... According to day/age creationism we are actually still in the seventh day. So God is still kicking back, sharpening his blade for another mass slaughter of his hapless creation. And the Bible does actually give an exact age for Adam at Genesis 5:5; 930 years. So no, there's no room for Adam to have lived billions of years.
Posted by: Jewbacca | December 2, 2009 1:12 AM
@ Hannah (#59):
a "day" is defined by the earth going around the sun.
I'm sorry, but this deserves the Picard/Riker double facepalm.
@ Julian (#67):
Seriously; one almost would think they didn't pay any attention in their freshman classics course!
But it's heretical to accept that Christianity might have even the smallest social, cultural, or historical influence on its tenets or texts, doncha know. Other religions, sure. Greek mythology, obviously. But Christianity? Completely divinely inspired with no social influences or relationships to other religions whatsoever (except for the religions that stole their lies from the Truth of Christianity(TM)). Starting to go OT, but this is exactly why I don't think it's possible for believers in any religion to study religions comparatively in an honest manner.
As for Andrew Parker, to paraphrase George Carlin: "Well, he's fairly intelligent... A-ha, he's full of shit!" Really, I don't buy for a second that he doesn't know better. He's just another liar for Jesus.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 2, 2009 1:14 AM
Why so much insistance on water? Well this may have to do with the fact that in old myths, water is linked to chaos (the Babylonian goddess Tiamat for instance), and chaos is what there is before creation. As SJ Gould noted, "creation" is not about creating stuff, it's about making an ordered cosmos out of a formless chaos. Not adding, but separating.
As for me, I find the "created heaven and earth" very funny. Sounds like "created the Sahara and a grain of sand".
Posted by: Lion IRC | December 2, 2009 1:26 AM
Oh this going to hurt me more than you.
1. The water is where the fish came from. How much water? How deep? Where does the mud stop and the water start? Where does the water stop and the condensation start? Hey God have you turned on your stop watch yet? Can somebody ask God to explain that whole light/energy/matter/quantum thingy to PZ Myers.
2. Isn’t water matter? Fiddle around with one type of matter and add stuff to it or take stuff away from it and it becomes a different type of matter. Physical matter.
3. Two thirds + one third = the surface of the earth. Where are those fish going to live when they leave the ocean at exactly 3.15PM on the biologists stop watch?
4. God can be in two different space/times at the SAME time. It is the human brain which is locked in chronology. He might be creating planets even as we speak. Besides, are not the basic ingredients for life ALREADY embedded PARTS of the subsequently formed astronomical objects?
5. And God did this and God did that and God did something else does not mean A then B then C. Linguistically we are forced to express simultaneous events this way. Did God feel like it was taking forever? The whale can live whether God enables it to. THAT’S why habitat MATTERS.
6. Compression of time – now you’re starting to get the hang of it. God moving really, really fast or maybe it’s actually slow – my eyes are playing tricks on me. Can I see the slow motion replay? Evolution is Creation in slow motion.
7. God rested. We should also stop and take time to enjoy what we have (been given). But God did not rest from that point on. The bible states that God continues to care for the swallows and the lilies of the field and making sure their beaks are strong enough to cope with tough seeds and making sure foxes have places to sleep at night.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 2, 2009 1:39 AM
Bored now. Bye bye, Lyin' Irk.
Posted by: pcarini | December 2, 2009 1:42 AM
It won't be missed.
Posted by: Mr T | December 2, 2009 1:48 AM
But PZ, my birthday is still weeks away! You are too kind.Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 2, 2009 1:51 AM
I think he actually committed more high crimes and misdemeanors than what you've given him credit for, PZ. An insipid godbotter is only part of what he is.
Posted by: Colin Meier | December 2, 2009 1:53 AM
That all depends on where PZ keeps the ammo for his Porn Gun.
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 1:55 AM
Heh. A touch kinder than Willow's "bored now".
Posted by: wiley | December 2, 2009 1:58 AM
For all intents and purposes, Genesis 1:1-4 and the Big Bang Theory are describing the exact same event, and it was a Christian who 1st thought of the idea that became known as the BBT. If Einstein (who at the time subscribed to the 'Steady State' model of the Universe) was a genius, how smart does that make the author of Genesis?
No, there's darkness in v2; light doesn't kick in till v3. The separation of light from darkness in v4 is an obvious reference to the decoupling of matter and electromagnetic radiation, the former still being in a state of plasma (or 'waters' as the author quaintly puts it; in the beginning, everything was indeed formless).
Posted by: pcarini | December 2, 2009 2:00 AM
To actually add something to the discussion:
My parents, who are Mormon, believe in a form of Day-Age creationism, also with 1000 years being the length of a day-age. It always seemed weird that in their attempt to reconcile Genesis with science they somehow ended up almost matching Ussher's calculations.
I guess this might have something to do w/ the Mormon belief, generally not loudly proclaimed, that God lives on a planet whose day is 1000 year long which orbits the star "Kolob".
I really should look into this belief to see how old it is... is it possible that the Mormons beat sci-fi writers to the punch by perhaps several decades, or is this more recent?
Posted by: Satan | December 2, 2009 2:04 AM
Given how much you must have strained to get it all out, I do hope you didn't tear something that will require proctological surgery.
I'm sure that God will get right on that.
Your breathtaking knowledge of physics is so... noted.
If I had a physical form, I would *facepalm*.
I feel like your words are taking forever.
I can almost see the smoke curling from your tiny little overheated brain.
That's actually the drugs kicking in.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 2, 2009 2:10 AM
FACEPALM
Because expressing how dumb that was in words just doesn't work.
Posted by: TheVirginian | December 2, 2009 2:13 AM
As a bit of history, the creation sequence in Gen. 1 parallels the creation sequence in the Babylonian epic "Enuma Elish." Either Gen. 1 is derived from the "Enmua Elish" or they share a common, older source. The "Enuma Elish" originally was Sumerian, but evolved, so to speak, by having new layers added by the Semitic peoples who eventually took over Mesopotamia. This led to a story in which successive generations of gods are born/created, and eventually the youngest generation angers the first generation, who start a war, which they lose. The Mother of All Gods, Tiamat, is cut up by the leader of the youngest gods (Marduk in Babylon but Assur in Assyria), and her body parts are used to create the world.
Several intriguing things are connected to this. The idea of a War between Generations of Gods was picked up by the Hittites, who had 3 successive god kings, each replacing his predecessor. The Greeks then picked up this idea in Hesiod's "Theogeny," in which Saturn replaces Uranus, and Zeus replaces saturn. So Gen. 1 has a one link to Greek mythology. Also, Tiamat likely is identical with a multiheaded dragon/water beast in Mesopotamian literature and art. So the multiheaded Dragon of Revelation, ridden by the Great Whore of Babylon (the goddess Ishtar) is a reference to Tiamat and the "Enuma Elish." And if, as some scholars suggest, the ultimate source of Leviathan and Behemoth, who battle Yahweh, includes a Canaanite story about Baal defeating two water monsters, a story that might be the ultimate inspiration of "Enuma Elish," then Gen. 1 is connected with very ancient, Middle Eastern literature.
As for Gen. 2, "Eve" is another name of the goddess "Asherah," who was the wife of Yahweh and therefore the Queen of Heaven. She was sometimes represented as a nude woman associated with snakes and a sacred fruit tree. In all likelihood, someone took an ancient story about humanity losing immortality by offending the gods (there are 3-4 such stories in Mideast literature) and turned it into a satirical attack on goddess worship by making the offense into heeding the goddess.
Posted by: pcarini | December 2, 2009 2:23 AM
If all the chemists in Switzerland teamed up w/ all of the pharmaceutical manufacturers in the US they still couldn't produce enough LSD to make that "obvious".
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | December 2, 2009 2:27 AM
Another point on day 3: The moon isn't a light.
The moon "shines" because it reflects the sun's light. Considering that the moon has phases based on the shadow cast by the Earth so a month of looking up at night could have better informed the people who wrote the Bible, it is one of those errors it is hard to make an excuse for.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 2, 2009 2:46 AM
Wiley, scoring 10/10 for tapdancing - but 0/10 for intellectual honesty:
Only if the meaning of the phrase 'exact same' has been changed and now means 'completely different'.
I believe the expression goes something like 'even a broken clock is right twice a day'.
Posted by: nomuse | December 2, 2009 2:50 AM
Err, Bruce, phases result from the direction of the sunlight. The shadow of the Earth is called an "eclipse."
I've heard the "really long day" idea defended based on some passage along the line of "A day with the Lord is like a thousand years." Now, my reading is just that god is incredibly boring. But anyhow! I've seen this used as defense that when you read Genesis, you just multiply each "day" by 365,000. So the six days of creation become 6,000 years, leaving another 6,000 post-creation for the rest of it.
For some reason, though, it never occurs to them that the Flood, then, lasted for 40,000 years. And Noah, that old patriarch, lived to be 346 million years of age.
Ah, well. I prefer the Lolcat Genesis anyhow. Ceiling Cat gets my vote!
Posted by: maxamillion
|
December 2, 2009 3:15 AM
This looks like a christian version of Bucailleism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille
http://wikibin.org/articles/bucailleism.html
just nutty.
Posted by: latsot | December 2, 2009 3:42 AM
I don't think that people construct tortured stories like this to reconcile the biblical account with science. Why should they? They can just claim that god is magic, which they believe trumps everything anyway.
I think they just do it to avoid looking (quite so) stupid. The same kind of thing seems to be going on when people say "oh of *course* miracles don't happen *today*".
Either they secretly know that their claims make no sense so don't want to think about it too much, or they are vaguely aware of how batshit it all makes them sound, so they adopt the 'bigger picture' stance.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel
|
December 2, 2009 3:59 AM
I'm a former YEC, so here's my two cents.
The god that most Christians worship is a god who is omnipotent. It really doesn't matter if things line up or not; their god is capable of doing things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and the excuse is that we're just unable to understand how he did it.
The whole "the sun didn't exist for quite a while after life came around" thing is totally insignificant when you consider that you're working with an invisible space wizard. Logic is a meaningless human contrivance; reason is useless for anything beyond simple entertainment. Anything and everything is possible, so no purely scientific or rational limitations actually need apply.
Posted by: masksoferis.wordpress.com
|
December 2, 2009 4:27 AM
"This sounds like a very fascinating period that would make a great fantasy novel", huh?
Okay, I'll bite, but it has to be a trilogy. (Or a saga.) Backcover blurbs follow.
Volume I of the Gap Age Trilogy, "The Adventures of Young Lucifer":
Volume II of the Gap Age Trilogy, "Dark Dragon Rising":Vol III, "the Enochian Exterminators Strike Again" (in US, "the Great War") ---
Posted by: Tor | December 2, 2009 4:59 AM
I would like to take the opportunity to mention that strictly, and in a general sense, all Christians are creationists (unless they reject even the most basic Christian dogma). They all think they believe that their God created the world, the universe, and everything, at some point. What's the difference really, between God magically poofing existence into existence some billion years ago, or some thousand years ago?
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | December 2, 2009 5:21 AM
Fundamentalism and sound exegesis - you get a maximum of one of them.
Posted by: raven | December 2, 2009 5:28 AM
Basically, they say goddidit, end of story. However, that doesn't explain anything or go anywhere. And it isn't science.
1. We don't give a rat's ass what people believe, it is a free country. It is OK if people believe their toaster, car, and computer are run by fairies, elves, angels, and magic. But we can't run a civilization based on magical thinking.
2. At the end of the day, such thinking leads to Nihilism and Last Thursdayism. God the space wizard created the universe last Thursday with us and all our memories of 13.7 billion years. It ends in two days so enjoy your last 48 hours. Next week is Ruler Squid universe. Then Dungeons and Dragons univese, followed by Lord of the Rings universe.
It is OK to believe the universe is meaningless and temporary but why would anyone worship such a being or even bother to care what happens around us?
We tried magic as the all purpose explanation for 150,000 years. We call those ages the "stone age" and "the Dark Age". We've done better lately. It is called The Age of Science.
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 5:35 AM
Tor,
It's the God of the Gaps.
The former belief is compatible (so far) with science, the latter ain't.
But yeah, as you say, all Christians are creationists.
Posted by: raven | December 2, 2009 5:45 AM
LOL, this is funny. You could make the bible look like the kludgy anthology of bronze age sheep herders it is very easily.
This would be the new Left Behind equivalent exegenesis. Except far more interesting.
The bible mythology badly needs updating for the 21st century. Since it was all made up anyway, go for it. The next Lucas.
Posted by: raven | December 2, 2009 5:53 AM
Nothing. The majority of xians worldwide just say god created the Big Bang and invented evolution. End of story. Xianity is about Salvation, going to heaven rather than hell. Nothing else matters. Salvation=believe in jesus. or else.
Fundie Death Cult xian isn't about xianity. It is about political control, nihilism, and rejecting reason and civilization in favor of primitive superstition. These people are just sick, evil, and stupid. They would say, "So what, you say that like it is a bad thing.".
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 2, 2009 6:05 AM
Why don't they just go with Philip Gosse and Omphalos? Admittedly, the "join" between the prehistory that happened only in God's imagination, and the real stuff starting in Eden 6000 years ago is a bit tricky, but surely a lot easier to deal with than if you take the full-on YEC approach, and once you're safely back beyond 1mya or so, it's plain sailing, and you're just exploring the mind of God.
Posted by: vanharris
|
December 2, 2009 6:07 AM
Pahhhh!
Where are the turtles?
(That question was rhetorical. We all know that it's turtles all the way down.)
Posted by: Matt Heath | December 2, 2009 6:32 AM
"Let there be light" as the formation of sun or evolution of the eye? That's shit; I can make up better bollocks than that.
See, bullshitting is easy.
Also the plant life @ verse 11 is clearly a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, while Day 4 refers only to the lights near enough that they could be seen without telescopes from Eden.
Stands to reason.
'Tis Himself at #26: Cricket doesn't have innings; it has inningses. (Well actually it has innings but the singular is also "innings")
Posted by: Pick your battles | December 2, 2009 6:48 AM
Day Age was started decades ago to introduce cosmology amd evolution more palatable to the uninitiated. You win nothing by trying to fight this. You start a battle that you must now win, when you had already won the war if you would just be wise enough to be quiet.
If you must say something in response to "scary similarities" just say, "hmmm, interesting" and let it go at that.
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 2, 2009 7:02 AM
For all intents and purposes, Genesis 1:1-4 and the Big Bang Theory are describing the exact same event - wiley the lying cowardly little shit.
Liar: Genesis 1:1-4 puts the creation of the Earth at the beginning.
By the way, you cowardly little shit, if an 11-year-old is raped and impregnated by her father, should she be allowed an abortion?
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 2, 2009 7:32 AM
Trying to be hilariously ironic, Pick your battles? Because this is clearly one of the dumbest things I have ever read. The FAIL is so epic that I detect a joke. If sarcasm was intended, good one. If not, you might want get a clue before you try to cross a street for the first time.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | December 2, 2009 7:38 AM
nomuse
My mistake. But the basic argument still holds - the moon clearly wasn't "A light" given that the phases of the moon show that it has a dark side.
Posted by: Mystic Olly | December 2, 2009 8:07 AM
Although Parker's recent religious outpourings have been incredibly whack, I have to say that I own one of his books "Seven Deadly Colours" and it is excellent.
Unlike his first book (which PZ has read) "In the Blink of an Eye" which proposes his hypothesis that the Cambrian explosion resulted from the evolution of vision, it steers clear from much controversy, instead focusing on the various different ways colour is produced in Nature, describing in seven different chapters, different colours produced in different ways (pigmentation, structural colour, bio-luminescence etc.)
I recommend it. Though perhaps it is better got from a library to avoid funding his recent derangements.
Poor show, Parker, poor show.
Posted by: Raul Spurlock | December 2, 2009 8:24 AM
Ramblin' Dude, Phoenix Woman, Mike the Infidel, Raven, & others have the right of it: most creos,
like most Americans, simply don't care very much about sciencey factoids, considering them irrelevant to the important business of saving souls & meddling in the lives of their neighbors.
Posted by: ButchKitties | December 2, 2009 8:36 AM
@TheVirginian
YES! I was hoping someone would bring up the Enuma Elish. The two myths are mightily similar to each other, though personally I find the version where the firmament is made from the carcass of a slain dragon goddess more engaging.
It has been suggested that the word for the primordial waters in Genesis "tehom" is a derivative of Tiamat.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM
|
December 2, 2009 9:24 AM
PZ, excellent post. I will probably use it, verbatim, the next time that this argument is dragged out in front of me.
As for everyone else, disclaimer: I'm a theist, and I have a completely different understanding of Genesis 1 and 2, as follows....
1) Textual analysis shows that they are compiled from (at least) two separate accounts
2) Genesis 1 is liturgical in character, and much more recent than the folk tale found in Genesis 2
3) Genesis 1 dovetails somewhat with the 'Enuma Elish' one of the points of the liturgy is to distinguish its adherents from the views of their contemporaries. That is, Genesis 1 and the 'Enuma Elish' likely had a common source, but the Biblical narrative goes in a different direction. The suggestion (made above) that Genesis 2 cleverly subverts the cult of Ishtar is intriguing in that light.
4) The weird ordering that PZ highlights is not a consequence of a natural history made sensible for sheepherders. Rather, it reflects the desire of the authors of Genesis 1 to assert the superiority of Yahweh to other deities who were associated, variously, with the sea, the sun, moon and stars. "See...OUR god was first...all you other people aren't worshiping the true god, but just the things he created."
For a more detailed and nuanced discussion of the above point, along with a breakdown of what is called 'the sequence problem' that PZ has analyzed from a different point of view, check out Lawson Stone's piece here:
http://homepage.mac.com/lawsonstone1/Sites/blog/Creation02.html
Posted by: Lost Left Coaster | December 2, 2009 9:25 AM
PZ, I'm so disappointed with your analysis. Clearly, if you play "Dark Side of the Moon" at the same time as the Wizard of Oz, the whole things lines up uncannily! There's no doubt that L. Frank Baum created Pink Floyd.
Day age what?
Posted by: mr.ed | December 2, 2009 9:35 AM
An old family story tells that the days got jumbled later in a camel/oxcart accident. Honest.
Posted by: KI | December 2, 2009 9:38 AM
Masksoferis@91
Do you know this period has been covered by John Milton? I'm only halfway through book two of "Paradise Lost" (hard reading for a brain-addled modern guy), but a perusal of the upcoming parts seem to outline a plot for your trilogy.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
December 2, 2009 10:17 AM
FWIW, something like 'day age creationism' was part of Jewish orthodoxy long before Darwin.
Not that this is evidence in favor of such a cosmology, but it's not just an ad hoc response of some creationists either.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 2, 2009 10:38 AM
Does anyone here remember Carol "Polytheists Never Did Any Science" Clouser's hilarious attempts to flog this very theory on Panda's Thumb? I'm surprised she's not found this post yet. Maybe Josh Landa's no longer paying her to shill his book...?
Posted by: Epikt | December 2, 2009 11:11 AM
This is just naked Templeton-grant-whoring, right?
Posted by: Jaban | December 2, 2009 11:13 AM
"And God said unto Abraham, 'I breathed the breath of life into the dust, and from it came forth the smallest creatures, the bacteria. With the eye they could not be seen, because they are very small. And their composition was of four elements. Yes, of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine they were formed. And they did grow and change, and from them came forth new creatures. Yes, generation upon generation did come forth, and I did cause change to bring forth various forms. Only the best for their environment I did allow to live, and the others died. Ye, the new forms I did bring forth and cause to survive. All the beasts of the field and all the birds of the heavens and all the fish of the sea I did bring forth through change and competition. Four billion years it did take.'"
And Abraham thought, "hmmm, that doesn't make sense. I'll just say he made them all from dust and that it took a day."
Posted by: Recovered Catholic | December 2, 2009 11:18 AM
Just grabbed this amazing ILLUSTRATED edition of Genesis by one of the best. Go out and get yours today!!! I highly recommend it.
http://www.crumbproducts.com/comics.html
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 11:19 AM
That's because He hadn't reached puberty Himself yet and therefore simply didn't think that far, say some.
It goes further still.
Tiamat is the same word as tehom, the darkness in Gen 1:2, plus the feminine ending -at. The Akkadians/Babylonians/Assyrians were well-known aitch-droppers, and the vowels e and o are Hebrew or generally Canaanite innovations (the Akkadian e has a different origin).
It's a subtle introduction of a precursor to monotheism into the Enuma Elis. Instead of all these things (sea monsters, sun, moon…) being separate gods, 'Elohim creates them. It's a demythologization of nature, sort of a rejection of pantheism. See comment 108.
Whut?
Just check out the first link in this comment.
In fact,
1) swallows don't eat seeds, you utter moron, they eat insects which they catch on the wing. Have you never seen one???
2) Those seed-eating birds whose beaks are not strong enough to cope with the available seeds simply starve to fucking death. That's called natural selection. Happens almost every year in the Galápagos islands.
Sorry. I have SIWOTI syndrome.
I don't even need to comment this special pleading.
Even "hot air" would be a better match for "plasma" than "waters". <headdesk>
Yeah, but – have they reached the Godzilla Threshold?
Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Posted by: Thomas Galvin | December 2, 2009 11:34 AM
I think the takeaway from all these "explanations" is that creationists (or fundies in general) will grasp at anything that allows them to hold onto their belief in the Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture (TM). They'll read about the day/age theory, or the gap theory, or the "apparent age" theory, and say to themselves "well, thank God, there's the loophole I was looking for."
And, often, they know it's a loophole. Of course, by the time they get to that level of self-awareness, it isn't that far a walk to rationality. At least, it wasn't for me.
Posted by: Craig | December 2, 2009 11:42 AM
I have a question about Genesis . .
Did God give Adam testicles before or after he created Eve?
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 11:54 AM
Craig, Adam had testicles but he was unaware of it.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 2, 2009 11:59 AM
Dr. Myers doesn't get to define what reality is so I'll beg to differ here. That aside he does at least make an attempt to analyse Genesis. I'll agree that it does not make sense against the popularly accepted version, but Myers cannot even understand what is being described:
In no way is an "aquatic universe" being described. If you read the first few verses you'll see the water is confined to the face of the earth. It was that water that was divided.
Now I know I'll get not a smidgen of respect for my views, but at least concede that this particular point of Dr. Meyers is not a correct evaluation of what is being described.
Posted by: James Sweet | December 2, 2009 12:03 PM
Yeah, I've often wondered why the Day-Age thing isn't more prominent. Day-Age Creationism makes perfect sense until you examine it carefully, after which it is exposed as malarkey. But you actually have to pay a little attention and know a tiny smidge about the history of the Earth.
Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, is completely loony right on the surface. It doesn't even really take any critical thinking to realize it's total bullshit.
I guess that's what's so appealing about it... Day-Age Creationism, by almost making sense (if you aren't paying attention), opens the door a tiny crack towards evaluating things from a rational perspective. The tiny leak becomes a flood, and the next thing you know, you have a full-blown believer in theistic evolution...! YEC, in contrast, is hermetically sealed against rationality from the get go.
It's a lot easier to avoid "too much" critical thinking if you never even start thinking in the first place, right?
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2009 12:03 PM
That would be fine if they just left it at that. If you[1] want to believe your book is right and it's reality that's got it wrong, go for it, but own up to it. Why they insist on twisting and torturing and re-interpreting it to make it fit the facts is beyond me unless they know, deep down, it's a really silly thing to believe.
[1] Just to be clear, that's a generic, collective "you" and not a "you personally".
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 2, 2009 12:07 PM
Did God give Adam testicles before or after he created Eve?
If before, it's a pretty safe bet that Adam did a lotta sinnin' LONG before Eve handed him that apple.
Posted by: Michael Dowd | December 2, 2009 12:15 PM
You're utterly amazing, PZ. How you write so much, so well, so consistently, and heap boatloads of scorn on religious absurdity so brilliantly and humorously (and still have a life!) is beyond me. You are one of the true natural wonders of the world. Future generations cheer you on.
Keep up the great writing!
~ Michael
Posted by: Yahzi | December 2, 2009 12:19 PM
Christians are becoming YECs for the best of reasons: because it makes logical sense.
There is a reason for biblical literalism: endowing the book with supernatural reliability is the only way to justify its claims about defeating death. If the Bible is wrong about Genesis, then maybe it's wrong about Jesus; and vice versa. You can't just pick out the parts you like and claim those are the divinely inspired ones. That way leads to liberal religion, and liberalism invariably leads to atheism.
So the book has to be right about everything; the text has to be a divine miracle; and that entails YEC. Once you accept the premise, you have to embrace the conclusion.
Of course, this also leads to atheism, since the conclusions are so absurd. That's why liberal religion was invented - to escape the silly conclusions by applying some common sense.
Basically, any attempt to interject reason, logic, and consistency into religion leads to atheism. The only way theology survives is if nobody actually looks at it.
Posted by: raven | December 2, 2009 12:32 PM
Genesis 1 is usually badly translated. In a better translation there is no creation ex nihilo, from nothing. The deities started with whatever was already there. I use the plural because there were at least two, Elohim and Yahweh running around.
There are some not so subtle references to the old polytheism in the OT, most of which seems to have been edited out over the millenia. In Psalm 82, Yawheh, one of the sons of Elohim {Most High}, fires his brothers and kills them. God also had a wife called Asherah. She is mentioned lots of times in the OT, and not very favorably.
Hmmm, Yahweh fires his brothers and takes away their immortality and super powers. And gets rid of his wife. The OT god is a rather malevolent being.
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2009 12:32 PM
Certainly not without any support for your claim that your interpretation is correct and his isn't.
See above.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 2, 2009 12:46 PM
how does this happen?
Posted by: raven | December 2, 2009 12:55 PM
That is what the xian religions do. Most churches very deliberately hide the vast majority of the bible from their members. They pick out a small number of passages and "interpret" them for the members.
Few xians know that most of the OT is the Jews genociding their neighbors and taking their land and stuff. Or that parts of the NT are clearly forged and it is riddled with inconsistencies.
And it works. The bible is such a kludgy anthology of archaic thinking with so little relevance today that almost no one actually bothers to read it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 2, 2009 12:59 PM
Oh yes it's completely obvious. So obvious that God decided to cloak it in ambiguous language so as to be perfectly clear what was being discussed.
Posted by: Craig | December 2, 2009 1:03 PM
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 11:54 AM
Craig, Adam had testicles but he was unaware of it.
***************************************************
Ok, why did Adam have testicles before Eve?
I'm being sarcastic, but it is a point, no?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 2, 2009 1:06 PM
The reminded him he was in charge. Once Eve came on the scene that illusion was removed.
Posted by: Jim | December 2, 2009 1:06 PM
*raises hand*
Gap Theory Lite adherent here. It makes the best sense out of the passage, but it's likely just a bit of poetry whose basic purpose is to inform the reader, right up front, "This isn't a God who had to slay a great monster and make the Earth from her bones. He's bigger than that."
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2009 1:09 PM
Not for nothing, but I, for one, have to wonder why anyone tries to make any sense out of it.
Posted by: darth_borehd | December 2, 2009 1:10 PM
I would let it go.
Some people want to to believe that there is a deity and that a particular book is his book. That's fine. I don't. Many of you who don't. Some do. I say that's OK. It's a free country and you can believe and craziness you want to believe.
My problem with young-Earth creationists is their continued obstruction of education and science.
If they find some way to reconcile their superstition so they do not feel compelled to impede other people's rights to education and scientific understanding, then I am willing to back off.
We, as a species, can now continue to further our understanding of biology and astronomy, without having to waste our time arguing with anti-science masses like the Discovery Institute.
I really don't care if they want to retcon their mythology to fit scientific knowledge. It's going the other way that is a problem.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
December 2, 2009 1:11 PM
I was with PZ until the end where he claimed that 7-day literal creationism is no more fundamentalist than the day/age metaphor interpretation. Actually, the willingness of the moderately religious to sugar-coat their religion by blatantly lying about what it says (i.e. claiming Genesis meant "day" as a metaphor for a long age) IS a huge part of the problem, and at least the fundies aren't trying to cover up what it says. At least their approach is honest enough to bring their lunacy to the surface for all to see. I actually have less respect for those who try to pretend that genesis is true despite being factually wrong by pretending it was intended metaphorically. This sort of double-think gives a lot of cover for the religion to be wrong and yet not be criticized for it. They divert the issue by trying to pretend us critics of the bible are just as "fundamentalist" as the fundies when we interpret the bible as meaning what it actually says and then point out that it's wrong.
There's a certain lunatic honesty to fundies that I respect a bit more than the moderates who try to lie to themselves about the intent of incorrect biblical passages - retroactively pretending they were intended metaphorically so they don't have to admit that something about their religion they love so much has been in modern times objectively proven wrong. I would put the day/age metaphor dodge into the "lying moderates" category and not in with the "honest but delusional fundies" category.
Posted by: David_Raikow | December 2, 2009 1:18 PM
Surely Biblical Scholars have studies this, but...
It's ridiculous to think the writers of the Bible would have meant "Plant Earth" when they wrote "Earth", since they had no conception of planets. Instead, "Earth" more likely meant "Dry Land", which makes much more sense as it is clearly stated as such later on. That is, God moved over a land-less sea ("face of the waters"), and created land, as it says. This is a class of creation myth whereby life and land is born from the sea.
Clearly, "Earth" never meant a planet.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 1:23 PM
I was playing with the idea that Adam and Eve were unaware that they were unaware of their nakedness until the ate the forbidden fruit. Also, it amused me to speculate that a man would be aware of that dangling thing. Also makes me wonder about what happened when he peed.
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 2, 2009 1:29 PM
Ok, why did Adam have testicles before Eve? - Craig
I didn't realise Eve had testicles!
Posted by: raven | December 2, 2009 1:31 PM
The writers, editors, and revisors of Genesis clearly thought it was just a story. There are two contradictory accounts. They saw that because they put them in deliberately themselves. Most likely, there were two factions with two versions and they didn't think it was worth arguing over...because it was just a myth. The whole book of Genesis is like that.
Which makes them smarter than the modern day fundies.
Agreed. But we have to deal with the reality we have. The YECS keep throwing suicide bombers in front of the bus of progress. If they didn't, no one would care. Just like no one cares what the Amish think about electricity.
Posted by: middle professor
|
December 2, 2009 1:32 PM
I rank ordered the bible and reality very quickly and giving some leeway (e.g. whale = fish) and found a correlation of 0.67 with P = 0.023 using a simple permutation test. It would be more fun to do a model selection type approach and gather many, many, creation stories and find the "model" that best fits reality. This could be a seminal paper in creation research. My data
Object Bible Reality
earth 1 2
light 2 1
seas 3 2
angiosp. 4 5
stars/planet 5 1
fish 6 3
bird 6 5
creepies 7 4
humans 8 6
*note I equate whales with fish and indeed anything in the sea as a fish, hence fish before creepies. I'm not sure of the order of actually fish v. anything terrestrial.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
December 2, 2009 1:33 PM
Indeed. Does seem almost as farfetched as the talking snake, pretty much...
But come to think of it, considering this further, mebbe the whole 'Don't go eating of this tree...' thing was a whole misunderstanding, after all...
Stay with me here... See, what really happened was: Yahweh didn't want Adam climbing any trees...
... I mean, insofar as: if you're (a) naked and (b) unaware you have testicles...
Well, I'm pretty sure I've never climbed any trees while naked... Honest... I think.
(/But even without having tried it, I'm pretty sure that (c) doing so would raise a considerable risk of discovering in somewhat awkward and/or painful fashion that you do have such appendages.)
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2009 1:35 PM
She doesn't ... yet.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 2, 2009 1:37 PM
@tsg
The support for my claim is fairly obvious. In verse 2 of Genesis 1 there is water mentioned and it's on the surface of the earth. In verse 6 a firmament is created within and dividing those waters. I see no support for an "aquatic universe". Myers' (Meyers is a random mutation, Rev. BigDumbChimp ;) analysis is simply incorrect.
Where exactly should I "See above" for an explanation as to why Myers' analysis is correct?
Posted by: Eidolon in middle Georgia | December 2, 2009 1:40 PM
I can’t get past the fact that Andrew Parker is trying to compare science with ancient literature in order to claim that that bible is somehow true.
On what basis was this particular work of bronze-age literature chosen?
Unless they can give a good explanation of how they eliminated other works of literature and finally decided that bible is valid source for comparing to natural sciences, then I would reject their whole argument. It seems to be based on an invalid premise.
The bible might be a valid source in other areas of inquiry but certainly not in biology and physics.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 1:45 PM
I didn't realise Eve had testicles!
How could I have missed that!
Posted by: amphiox | December 2, 2009 1:45 PM
We can't just dismiss the seventh day like this, though. The seventh day is critically important for the Day-Age "hypothesis".
The seventh day began when humans first developed the scientific method. It explains why no miracle or any other divine activity has ever been observed or documented by science.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 2, 2009 1:51 PM
Being that I'm the King of Typos™, I can respect that.
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2009 1:52 PM
To you maybe. That doesn't excuse you from having to provide it.
It doesn't say that, that's how you interpret it.
Yet another "my interpretation of the bible is the only correct one."
"See above" meant the first line in my comment asking for support for your position before "conced[ing] that this particular point of Dr. Meyers is not a correct evaluation of what is being described."
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 2, 2009 1:56 PM
@Rev. BigDumbChimp. I am usually a bit more careful. Either that or I am usually able to edit my work. ;)
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 2, 2009 2:00 PM
@tsg. Thanks for conceding the point. Nice talking to you. :)
Posted by: amphiox | December 2, 2009 2:02 PM
The other key to comprehending (or some facsimile thereof) the Day-Age arguments is that the whole thing relies on metaphor. Every single word of Genesis is a metaphor, and the metaphors shift through the narrative. So, for example, "waters" refers to fluids (like clouds of hydrogen gas) in one instance, and spacetime in another, and regular water in others.
The beauty of the system of course is that you can shift the metaphors to match with anything, so it's immune to all possible future scientific discoveries.
You can try to square Genesis 1 and 2 by assuming that they don't describe the same event. Genesis 2 describes a separate creation event some time after Day 7 of Genesis 1, localized in a particular locale in the middle east. (For some reason God wasn't happy with his first effort and decided to try again, or maybe YHWH and God aren't the same entity, and YHWH wasn't happy with God's work) The animals and plants created in Genesis 2 are just the ones man domesticated (to be his help meets?). The serpent, of course, was smuggled in by satan. This would also explain where Cain got his wife.
Alternately, the entire Genesis 2 account is an elaboration on the sentence "male and female he created them" in Genesis 1, and again the animals and plants created in Genesis 2 are only the domestics made by god specifically for Adam to use. And the whole thing occurs over a few seconds on Day 6.
Of course, all this means the flood refers to the Permian mass extinction. The "fountains of the deep" are methane hydrates exploding, and the flood waters themselves are metaphors for noxious gases and a dropping O2 level asphyxiating everything.
And Noah was a cynodont.
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2009 2:03 PM
[I hit submit instead of preview]
Re: My #150
Verse 7 says this "firmament" is dividing the waters above from the waters below. Verse 8 calls this firmament "heaven". Verse 9 has god calling for the waters "under the heaven" to be gathered in one place and let dry land appear, which he names "earth" in verse 10.
There's a big expanse of water which god carves a hole in and makes a boundary called "heaven", separating some of the water. He rolls this water into a ball, throws some land on it and calls it earth. The earth doesn't even exist yet in verse 1, so how can that water be on the face of the earth?
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 2:04 PM
Stripe, were you being sarcastic when you thanked tsg.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 2:04 PM
Stripe, do you have any conclusive physical evidence for youre imaginary deity yet? No deity, no inerrant babble.
Posted by: Josh | December 2, 2009 2:05 PM
*smack*
That's for writing that, even in snark.
'though I must pull the punch because this is pure redemption.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 2, 2009 2:08 PM
right. you don't know what a firmament is, do you.Posted by: adamsan | December 2, 2009 2:13 PM
Maybe it's not only longer then six days, but with a little mixed order. Isn't it amazing that the ancient jews knew all this? :)
And what if he got it wrong?
I mean, he is God, after all, we shouldn't be judgemental. :)
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2009 2:13 PM
Oh, so it's going to be that kind of discussion. If you had just told me you were a troll up front I could have saved a lot of time and ignored you straight away.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 2, 2009 2:16 PM
@tsg Re: your #150
Have you ever heard the saying, "Heaven on earth"? ;)As in English, the word for "earth" can have multiple meanings in other languages. What you see referred to as earth in v9 is not the entire globe, but rather just the part that is being discussed. I.e. the firmament.
@Janine, yeah, I was being sarcastic. :) I figured if my interpretations were seen as so unrelated to the text I'd get away with it. Your sharp mind has caught me out though. ;)
@Nerd of Redhead, does the physical universe the sum total of what exists or are there some things that are real, but not physical?
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2009 2:18 PM
Except "firmament" is the sky.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 2, 2009 2:19 PM
earth in v10, not 9.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 2, 2009 2:20 PM
ah, indeed. you really don't know what the word firmament means. your weaseling has exactly zero ground to stand on, since the word "firmament" means literally "sky-dome". the ancient people imagined we lived in a reverse sno-globe.Posted by: Stripe
|
December 2, 2009 2:22 PM
@jadehawk & tsg. Depends which firmament you're talking about. There are two mentioned in Genesis 1.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 2:28 PM
@Janine, yeah, I was being sarcastic. :) I figured if my interpretations were seen as so unrelated to the text I'd get away with it. Your sharp mind has caught me out though. ;)
I make no claims about being sharp, except for this, I am sharper then you. It is nothing I will brag about, a rusty razor beats you.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 2, 2009 2:30 PM
are you stupid or something?the word "firmament" means "sky-dome"; thus, whenever it's used, that is what it refers to. the first part is about making the sky (separating the waters); the second part is about
hanging lamps from the ceilingmaking stars in the sky.so yeah. aquatic universe. water below (sea) and water above (sky) and a tiny reverse sno-globe called the firmament inside which we live.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
December 2, 2009 2:37 PM
... here's $5 sez Adam thought exactly the same thing.
... and he says to his friends, later: 'Well, sure, when we hooked up, maybe I'd had a few...
(/'...but guys, honestly, it just didn't seem like that kinda joint.')
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 2:39 PM
No, no – El Elyon is the Most High God. Elohim is just the plural "gods"; it's the entire pantheon, El and his 70 or 77 sons, that does the creating in Gen 1 and says "let us make man".
Where do you get that from? All I see is a threat that they'll die if they keep failing to do good.
…into waters "above the firmament" (Gen 1:7) – that's where rain comes from after all – and waters below.
Did you stop reading at Gen 1:6?!?
It's completely incompatible with the passage, see comments 54 and 127. Don't be fooled by bad translations.
Posted by: CJO | December 2, 2009 2:41 PM
What you see referred to as earth in v9 is not the entire globe, but rather just the part that is being discussed. I.e. the firmament.
What? v.8: "And God called the firmament Heaven."
The "aquatic universe" as PZ has it, is a bit over-literal, though. The "formless void" is equated to water, yes, but water as the physical manifestation of chaos; it's a metaphor for turbulence and uncontrollable force, the flood, the sea. This has a social dimension, too, which is often under-appreciated in favor of interpreting these texts solely as aetiologies. God is the ultimate patron, the King of Heaven. He alone can hold at bay the chaos that always looms over the fragile social relations that pertain under an earthly king. A "good king" does what is right in God's eyes, acts as his proxy on earth, and so brings peace, construed as tranquility, prosperity: freedom from the chaos that always threatened to overwhelm in the guise of famine, disease, banditry, war, etc.
It's all through the Bible. In the flood story, God again unleashes what he had separated and controlled, wiping out his creation. Moses uses this Godly power to control the sea when he parts the waters, and again, more problematically, when he calls forth water from the rock in the wilderness. Jesus calms the storm and walks on water, signifying his divine power over these same forces of chaos, showing himself to be the ultimate Good King, a patron who will bring peace, the Kingdom of Heaven, and hold violence and destruction at bay.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 2:46 PM
Quite obviously he/she/it/squid has never read any book that uses the slightest amount of poetic metaphor. Saying "firmament" to mean "sky" is so common I don't know where to begin.
Tell me, stripe, how many books have you read in your life so far?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 2:56 PM
Sorry, capital letter in Stripe.
Well, fine, but the "waters […] above the firmament" turn out to be entirely real in the Flood story where God opens a trap door in the sky and lets some water fall out (as rain).
Posted by: CJO | December 2, 2009 2:57 PM
Tell me, stripe, how many books have you read in your life so far?
I'm guessing "all 66"
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 2, 2009 3:02 PM
snorting oatmeal out my nose is painful. I demand reparations; or at least an apology.Posted by: CJO | December 2, 2009 3:03 PM
the "waters […] above the firmament" turn out to be entirely real in the Flood story where God opens a trap door in the sky and lets some water fall out (as rain).
Resulting in chaos and destruction.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 3:04 PM
Ouch! Heartfelt condolences!
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2009 3:04 PM
He doesn't sound like an atheist....
Posted by: CJO | December 2, 2009 3:09 PM
I demand reparations
Well... bacon would've been worse.
Posted by: Upliftingmofo
|
December 2, 2009 3:24 PM
This is great! This is exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses have been spouting for the past 50 years or so. Before that it was this:
Watchtower January 1, 1951 Page. 27, The Christian’s Sabbath:
A day in the Bible is not always 24 hours long; 7,000 years for each of the creative days as well as the rest day is consistent with the Scriptures.—2 Pet. 3:8.
So previously it was 1000 years per "day." Eesh. Thanks for this article PZ, and for all your work. I've been hoping you'd put something up about the 'Day-Age creationism,' it's nice to have a good source that deals exactly with the issue I end up debating the most! Great chart too!
Posted by: raven | December 2, 2009 3:24 PM
Good point. I just assumed that since god's brother gods and his wife Asherah have gone missing that he carried through on his threat.
Although there is exactly zero evidence that he did so. Who probably killed the brother gods and Asherah was.....us humans. Some say when people stop believing in gods they go away.
I suspect the Old Testament was twice as long and a lot more interesting before all the other gods and goddesses got written out.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 3:24 PM
But we scientists have a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe. We don't need your imaginary deity for anything. So you need some hard physical evidence equiavlent to the eternally burning bush, that would have not naturalistic explanation. We are waiting for your evidence.Posted by: wiley | December 2, 2009 3:26 PM
Oh no, its K-K-K-Knockgoats c-c-c-cyber-stalking me for a yes or no answer for his "hypothetical" question, even though I gave him a 321-word answer on the original thread. I am not a pregnant 11YO, nor do I presume to speak for same (though I clearly indicated which way I would advise [given no other "hypothetical" circumstances]) and perhaps unlike the abusive beard-hating goat, I am not a patriarchal authoritarian who has never heard of the separation of powers of church & state. I am not the king of mine own heart, let leave any other soul's. But if (for eg.) the "hypothetical" question was about a 25YO who wanted to kill her own unborn child in order to 'Save The Planet', it would be a clear-cut case of human sacrifice to Gaia, so my advice would be different.
Back on track, some Biblical claims:
1. The Universe (heaven & earth) had a beginning. Does Science say any different?
2. The Universe (heaven & earth) was originally formless. Does Science say any different?
3. The Universe was initially dark, until light separated from the 'darkness'. Does Science say any different?
If stuff like this can survive hostile 'peer review' (unlike the Climate Club), and was written by a guy who didn't even go to University Of Minnesota, isn't it a little twee for a lecturer at same to nit-pick over the minor details, and still gets it wrong about point 3?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 2, 2009 3:28 PM
Note to self. Try snorting bacon.
Posted by: Wesley Dodson
|
December 2, 2009 3:31 PM
I think the real issue here is not whether biological life originated at the molecular level and has undergone a process of evolution into diverse species of plant, animal, fungus, and karyote over the last billions of years, the issue is that we need to have an open and candid understanding not only of why and how this happens, but the implications of awareness into the "meaning" of life or more accurately its definition. Matter is married to energy and energy to awareness and even awareness back to matter in ways that we don't fully understand yet. To sit around and twaddle your thumbs on the basis of matter, chaos, and entropy, in order to plead that we have become what we are by sheerly mechanistic or material means, is to ignore the true provenance of awareness, which is energy, the immaterial, the very small or very deep in singularity, that which we cannot observe. We are no closer to understanding the ultimate unseeable than we will ever be. So your time here on planet earth is better spent keeping your rationality shut and your eyes open, hoping to realize the indisputable knowledge that no one will ever agree upon.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 2, 2009 3:38 PM
The bible says earth was created before: light, sun and the stars. Does science say any differently? yes!The bible says the moon is a light in the sky, does science say any differently? yes!
The bible says man was specially created out of dirt, does science say any differently? yes!
No matter how you look at it, you're taking the hits and skipping the many misses. This is what happens when you take myth as more than myth, you in effect cheapen the myth by trying to make it as a historical document. The scientific account neither validates nor invalidates the genesis account because the genesis account is not a historical account!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 2, 2009 3:38 PM
That was a lot of words to basically say nothing.
We don't know yet so why use the tools we have?
Huh?
Keep your rationality shut?
Huh?
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 3:39 PM
we need to have an open and candid understanding not only of why and how this happens
we do. read a science journal sometime.
but the implications of awareness into the "meaning" of life or more accurately its definition
completely unrelated.
Matter is married to energy and energy to awareness
have you been reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" again?
just put it down and walk away, slowly.
So your time here on planet earth is better spent keeping your rationality shut and your eyes open, hoping to realize the indisputable knowledge that no one will ever agree upon.
can i have some of that acid you recently took?
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
December 2, 2009 3:40 PM
Incorrect. Your time on this planet is better spent keeping your wallet open, and sending $29.95 to my Swiss bank account monthly for the next four years...
... In return, you will receive high-fidelity stereo audiocassette recordings of my award-winning seminar on the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything, starting with our free, bonus round homily: 'When matter marries energy and awareness, are you breaking any state laws concerning polygamy? And whose family sits on the groom's side?'
(/...also, if you act now, you'll receive, free of charge, this complementary commemorative toaster...)
Posted by: masksoferis.wordpress.com
|
December 2, 2009 3:42 PM
At KI in #111:
Yeah, I know about Milton; I've read bits and pieces of Paradise Lost and really liked it. (Understatement; also lack of focus; I know.)
Anyway, it would be nice if you could see as varied and carefree takes on the Bible as you see on Beowulf, King Arthur, the Greek heroes, and such. If only this religion hadn't survived we could have Neil Gaiman's digimovie Samson ("I will kill your Philistines."), Marion Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Jerusalem ("Actually, the women were behind it all"), or Delilah: Warrior Princess.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 3:45 PM
1. The Universe (heaven & earth) had a beginning. Does Science say any different?
actually, there HAS been debate on that issue.
but even if there weren't, one could just as easily say the bible says there are "days", gee, so does science! it's bloody trivial at best.
2. The Universe (heaven & earth) was originally formless. Does Science say any different?
define formless.
3. The Universe was initially dark, until light separated from the 'darkness'. Does Science say any different?
irrelevant.
your points are irrelevant and trivial.
congratulations.
If stuff like this can survive hostile 'peer review' (unlike the Climate Club), and was written by a guy who didn't even go to University Of Minnesota
look up Dunning-Kruger effect sometime
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2009 3:47 PM
I don't know, maybe I'm just thick today, but would you mind explaining to me how it's indisputable if no one agrees on it? If they don't agree, they are disputing it. It's sort of what the word means.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 3:49 PM
'When matter marries energy and awareness, are you breaking any state laws concerning polygamy?
*snort*
Posted by: raven | December 2, 2009 3:50 PM
Quite a load of pure gibberish there. You haven't been taking your medication again, have you?
In point of fact, we know a huge amount about the real world. Enough to create a Hi Tech civilization. We will know more and more as time goes on. We will never know everything but that is a good thing.
If we did, scientists would all have to find new jobs. And our civilization would come to a screeching halt.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 3:55 PM
If we did, scientists would all have to find new jobs.
worse than that, we would all have to become...
engineers...
*shudder*
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 2, 2009 4:00 PM
I finally got around to reading the original paper of that yesterday. Pretty eye-opening stuff. Made me feel a whole lot stupider - which I guess was the point.Posted by: Steve_C | December 2, 2009 4:14 PM
Someone has been reading Deepak.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 2, 2009 5:00 PM
That's not fair...
...A very small part of it was comprehensible enough to be incorrect.
Posted by: backoffscience | December 2, 2009 5:37 PM
Why do so many intelegent people get so angry about myths? Religious beliefs are not factual statements. Religious beliefs are not factual statements. Religious beliefs are not factual statements. You're all going to keep on getting angry until you see your barking up the wrong burning bush.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 2, 2009 5:45 PM
backoffscience, you're and idiot. the whole fucking point is that religiobots DO think that their religious beliefs are statements of fact, and they need to be disabused of that notion
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 5:49 PM
backoffscience:
It's not the myths that are irritating, it's the problematic actions people perform, based on belief in those myths.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 2, 2009 6:00 PM
You've obviously never met a creationist in full rant.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 2, 2009 6:00 PM
we know they're myths. it's those that claim they are not, that iare the problem.
Posted by: Ceuson | December 2, 2009 6:12 PM
Thank you PZ. I'd heard that Genesis has "days" prior to a sun to make them, and sure enough, the sun, moon and stars show up on day 4. What was "a day" for 1,2 & 3? And how does one separate the light and dark without a sun? I just finished "Why Evolution is True", and this is a great add-on. I'm gonna go quote the Bible.
Oh, another good one is Cain and Abel. After the one kills the other and god finds out, he says that god has to help him, because when the people find out he killed his own brother, they'll kill him in the street. And god puts a mark upon him to protect him. People? Streets? Weren't there just 4 people around? Maybe a couple sisters? Who are these people? Who needed and built roads? If Adam and Eve were the first and only, what's he talking about? Fun party conversation.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 2, 2009 6:15 PM
The problem is not anger over the myths themselves, it's over those who take the myths as something different or something more than being mere myth and see it as a scientific and / or historical account of the universe itself. That those who think that the particular mythology they hold has divine secrets that is proof that their mythology actually has divine inspiration.I'm with you, it's completely misrepresentative to take myth that way. It's myth, nothing more, nothing less. To take it as literal is to miss the point of what it is meant to be, and by doing so it deminishes what mythology is for all other cultures. It's storytelling, not science.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 2, 2009 6:53 PM
At the time Cain says that, there are exactly 3 people around (that we know of), and one of them is Cain himself, and the other two are his own parents. And how are they to know what he's done (unless he or God tells them?), anyway?
So... yeah, WTF?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | December 2, 2009 6:59 PM
It wasn't dark, it was opaque. Much like the center of the sun is today.
Posted by: wiley | December 2, 2009 7:14 PM
Dunning-Kruger? pah! what would he know?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | December 2, 2009 7:16 PM
Wiley made a funny!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 7:18 PM
Wiley is funny. Especially when he can never get the road runner...
Posted by: Andrew MW | December 2, 2009 8:43 PM
This is funny.
As a keen shoral singer I have sung a piece called "In the Beginning" by Aaron Copland, that sets this text beautifully. Now I can't read Genesis 1 without hearing the music running through my head... quite a nice side effect given what bollocks the actual content is!!
Posted by: Andrew MW | December 2, 2009 10:19 PM
oops, 'choral' I mean.
Posted by: mike | December 2, 2009 11:53 PM
ahh, but there is one religeous church,group,
whatever, who have got it right, scientology, man did they do it right they cut out the middle man -god and their man Big ronnie, said we all come
from another planet.He must be right cause look at all those rich and famous people who believe the word and pay big money to say so.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 2, 2009 11:57 PM
Random junks:
1. @ David Marjanović: Is there any topic on which you are ill-informed? We need to find a way for you to attain the papacy. Lots of smart people on this forum, but I scan the thread for your posts. I may have to start reading about vertebrates, a group I normally despise.
2. I am glad that Ichthyic referenced the Dunning-Kruger effect. I had never heard of it and looked it up. It explains a lot about my success to intelligence ratio.
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | December 3, 2009 2:51 AM
Mike in Maine #5, I think I'm not the only person to have thought that The evening and the morning were the first day could have been part of the story some time before somebody else thought of adding in similar lines for days 2-6. The 'first day' would refer to what you get by separating light from darkness (in time); the 'refrain' would be a later add-on, up to the conveniently magical number seven. (Why magical? Because 7 is a small prime and 7 days is roughly an even fraction of a month? Is thet enough?)
And the J narrative; everybody should know about the boy-god hypothesis. I'd really like to see the J narrative done as a comic book; it's certainly the funniest bit of the bible I can think of, or would have been before it got mixed up with stodgy old P.
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | December 3, 2009 3:24 AM
Oh I see David M alre4ady gave that link. Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2009 4:30 AM
Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn ?
Posted by: SEF | December 3, 2009 5:26 AM
More like: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn (for most euro-region weekday names).
Posted by: SEF | December 3, 2009 5:33 AM
Well, there's this and I'm sure there was another one somewhere (black+white drawings?) for which I don't have the link (I saw it many years back).
Posted by: Wayne | December 3, 2009 7:21 AM
@raven, to be as literal as possible, civilization is disease. It causes individuals, groups, and other organisms on this planet to suffer. To back this up, I cite our well-fed, miserable malnutrition, our prevalent if not always spectacular psychosis, and the fact that we reduce biodiversity and habitat worldwide. Why are we the only species to behave in ways so opposed to our individual and global well-being? Obviously the answer is in our "brains" or our intelligence or our consciousness or some such thing. But where do our thoughts come from?
Here's another creation story: billions of years ago, creatures from another world started or noticed the process of biological evolution on this planet. They bided their time until they had the perfect specimen for their purposes: a human being. What these creatures do is latch on to our awareness so as to consume our energy; they are like leeches. They disguise themselves by pretending to be OUR selves; they furnish their incessant thoughts and call them our own. No other living being on this planet thinks, and the human being does not think either, he is properly embedded in the chain of being, full of his own knowledge and power but free from wily distractions of our predator.
Like the livestock we eat that has gone from the wild to the pasture to the warehouse, we too are being raised for quantity and efficiency in order to feed another creature. That is the only cause and end of our civilization.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 8:04 AM
That whistling sound you just heard was the point sailing far over your head.
Posted by: Jim | December 3, 2009 9:07 AM
@189
There's a thriving literary tradition of doing just that. Heck, even the Christians get in on it, as with L'Engle's lesser known book, "Many Waters."
You can't do films of most Bible stories without getting an NC-17 rating, though. R for violence, at least in the States.
Really, though, I don't see much point in discussing myth as fact. The usefulness of a myth has almost no correlation with its historical or scientific accuracy.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 3, 2009 11:30 PM
@Jadehawk - No, I'm not stupid. Are you? :)
The word "firmament" does not mean "sky-dome". You've just asserted that because it makes the bible sound stupid. "Firmament" (raqia) actually means, "extended surface (solid)" or "expanse". And it is used in two very different ways in Genesis 1.
Suggesting that whenever it's used it can only mean "sky dome" is pretty weak. Try reading through Genesis 1 again and this time consider "firmament" to mean the surface of the earth (also called 'Heaven') and consider "the firmament of the heavens" to mean outer space (also called 'the heavens').
@CJO - When it says "And God called the firmament Heaven" it is referring to the land Adam and Eve walked upon.
@David Marjanovic - The "waters […] above the firmament" came from the waters below it. The fountains of the great deep were opened and what goes up must come down. :)
@Nerd of Redhead - I know you probably have a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe. But do you think that the universe consist only of natural things? Or do you think there is more to it than that?
@Kel - Does science really say the moon is not a light in the sky? I understand there are certain definitions that apply in science, but I can't believe you'd quibble over this one. :)
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 3, 2009 11:35 PM
The "Two firmaments" discussion will become much easier to resolve by discussing the two heavens mentioned.
In Gen 1:1 God creates the heavens (plural) and the earth.
In Gen 1:8 God calls a newly created thing "Heaven" (singular).
These two uses of the word heaven refer to two different things. The plural form is outer space, the singular form is the land Adam and Eve walked on. Read through Genesis 1 again with this in mind and come to grips with that which you wish to mock instead of mocking a cartoon version you've invented. :)
Posted by: llewelly | December 3, 2009 11:58 PM
Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 1:45 PM:
Wait. What? How long have conservatives been hiding this fact in the closet? uh oh. Maybe it really was "Adam and Steve" in the beginning.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 12:22 AM
To put it another way, the moon is a light in the sky the same way a desk is a light in my room. For the light we see from the moon, it is nothing but a reflection of the light from the sun - such is evident when the moon goes into the earth's shadow.It's just one point that demonstrates the greater problem of looking at the myth as anything but myth. I've heard a few different interpretations, such as "let there be light" being correct because there was light in the universe from ~100,000 years after the big bang and before the sun! Wow, it's so profound... except that the creation of the earth wasn't until after the sun and there have been stars for much longer than the sun has existed.
The problem I'm highlighting is if one is trying to interpret there being significance in correlation, then one must take the negative as well. The moon is not a light in the sky, and yes while it is a minor issue to quibble over as opposed to things like there being an earth (and even plants!) before the sun or that humans are ki golems, or that the notion of a global flood is absurd for 243 different reasons, or that language study doesn't line up with the Babel explanation... But it's still a problem if one is going to pretend that their holy book matches with modern science.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 12:25 AM
Yes, there are only natural things. Because your second question is both an irrelevant and inane question. If there is more than what we can see and sense, there is no evidence for it, and to speculate about such fictional unknowns is nothing but mental masturbation. Which you and theologians are good at.Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 12:30 AM
Er - sure. The moon reflects light. But when it is the only significant source of light is it not fair to call it a light?
I mean, I know you're only out to mock Genesis, but can't you at least concede this very small point? Genesis called the moon (and the sun) "lights" which was far more accurate than common practice of the time which was to call them gods.
If you were to show a little good faith on this issue then maybe we could move on to some of the issues where your side has a little more strength because this point, I gotta say it, is extremely weak.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 12:36 AM
No, it is a mirror, not a light. You know that. Time to quit stretching the truth into lies.Posted by: Rorschach | December 4, 2009 12:38 AM
Stripe @ 223,
Doesnt go into details...
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 12:42 AM
@Nerd of Redhead - you believe that there only exists that which is natural. I do not. I think that there is more to people than the sum of the matter that constructs their bodies. My evidence for this belief is that people can choose and that those choices are real things, not made of matter and nor derived solely from the interaction of matter. Instead I believe that when we make a choice it is a thing that brings about other non-material, yet real things. Things like justice, regret, anger, joy, love and faith.
Now, if you agree that love, joy, faith and hope are real, the boot is on the other foot. What evidence do you have that all these non-material things are actually material? No opinions please. Just empirical observations and the facts.
Thanks.
PS. If you do not think love is a real thing then please don't bother responding. :)
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 4, 2009 12:48 AM
No I think the universe consists of Wal-Mart and DDT. How about you darlin?
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 12:49 AM
@Nerd of Redhead - you believe that there only exists that which is natural. I do not. I think that there is more to people than the sum of the matter that constructs their bodies. My evidence for this belief is that people can choose and that those choices are real things, not made of matter and nor derived solely from the interaction of matter. Instead I believe that when we make a choice it is a thing that brings about other non-material, yet real things. Things like justice, regret, anger, joy, love and faith.
Now, if you agree that love, joy, faith and hope are real, the boot is on the other foot. What evidence do you have that all these non-material things are actually material? No opinions please. Just empirical observations and the facts.
Thanks.
PS. If you do not think love is a real thing then please don't bother responding. :)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 12:50 AM
So what? You have no evidence.And you show no evidence but mental masturbation. Worthless as evidence. Only physical evidence will get you there. Philosophy without evidence is sophistry. Which is all you have, which means it is worthless.Love is a biochemical feedback mechanism mediated by oxytocin. Nothing magical involved. More mindless and inane sophistry on your part.So, time to take you inane and unsupported ideas back to your woo infested mind, and leave them there.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 12:52 AM
Wow .. that was worth saying twice. :)
@Nerd. Can people not make choices? That was the evidence I provided.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 12:53 AM
No it's not. A mirror is not a light, it cannot generate light. Yet if I turn a light on in my bathroom, the mirror will light up my hallway even though the light is not directly visible. The mirror doesn't become a light, it only reflects light. You know I'm out to mock Genesis? You're wrong. I'm not out (in this instance) to mock Genesis. My case is that trying to interpret Genesis as a science book fails miserably because of all the points where it is wrong. Okay, now you're getting into comparative mythology. And you might be right on this issue, but it doesn't detract from my point in the slightest.I'll say it again, I'm not setting out (in this instance) to mock Genesis. I have no need to. My point is that there are points in the story that flatly contradict science, major or minor it still is a contradiction. If you want to call the moon a light in the sky an interpretative error, go ahead. But it still doesn't take away from my point that the Genesis account does not match with modern accepted science. So if one wants to point out where it does, it's pertinent to point out where it doesn't.
For the sake of argument, I'll concede that a mirror is a light because we perceive light coming from the mirror. I don't agree with this, but like I said above it is a minor point. This doesn't detract from my argument - that if one is going to look at a mythic text in a modern light to see how it matches up with our current body of knowledge, then they have to take the bad with the good. There's no getting around having an earth before the sun, or having plants on this earth before there was a sun. There's no getting around the special creation of man.Yet all this would go away with a very simple admission: Genesis is mythic storytelling. It's neither right nor wrong scientifically because it isn't science. The problem comes from looking for an interpretation of the myth that corresponds to the knowledge of our age. And if you pretend that Genesis is a science book, then it's going to be savaged on scientific grounds.
Take the Aboriginal tale of the Giant Rainbow Serpent. As has been told to me through school, the myth goes along the lines of plain continent where a giant mythic serpent carves out the landscape. Do we point and laugh at that and say "Giant serpents? Which berries were your ancestors eating? That's stupid." No, because the story isn't meant to be a scientific account. It's myth, not science.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 12:57 AM
I presume you are implying the fallacious sophist argument of free will. Irrelevant. Free will comes from evolution, not an imaginary deity. There is no need for a deity in this world. Only the the woo infested minds like yours who can't handle reality. Your sophist arguments are not persuasive. Only physical evidence, like say an eternally burning bush, which you clearly lack, is persuasive.Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 4, 2009 1:04 AM
Choice is not evidence. It is an opinion.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
December 4, 2009 1:06 AM
Fact: no-one has ever demonstrated that love exists without being tied to a living organism; ergo, until proven otherwise, it is unreasonable to assume that it can exists outside the minds of living creatures and is therefore a wholly physical occurrence.
Show us how love exists outside the mind you might have something worth talking about.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 1:15 AM
@Kel - Call it an educated guess when I claim to know you're out to mock Genesis. :)
If your only case is that trying to interpret Genesis as a science book fails miserably then you'd probably win. It's not a science book. It's a history book. It's not written in what might be accepted by a peer review panel.
But that fact does not make what it says inaccurate.
If you have points to make about where it is incontrovertibly wrong then, by all means, make them. I'm just trying to get you to concede one very small point here. That is, to call the moon and the sun "lights" is not wrong even though you think it is. From a technically scientific view you may have a point, but it really is a very weak sort of attack.
I do not wish to call the description of the moon an interpretative error. It's not. I think the moon is a light in the sky and I would go a very long way in normal conversation to find someone to disagree with me. I guess the only reason they would disagree is if they knew the point I was making. Or perhaps if the scientific definition of what constitutes a "light" excludes the moon then I would be wrong in scientific discussion.
That the Genesis account does not match with modern accepted science is unargued. It doesn't. Genesis is correct and modern science isn't. So, deal. I won't pretend that Genesis is a science book. But that is not to say it doesn't accurately describe the history of the universe.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 1:18 AM
@Nerd - Was that a, "Yes"? Do you agree that people can make choices?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 4, 2009 1:24 AM
It also fails miserably in that respect as well. For example, there is no evidence of a large Jewish slave population in Egypt nor of 600,000+ people wondering around the Sinai desert for 40 years.
No it doesn't, but the abundance of evidence contradicting the claims of the Bible does make it inaccurate.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 4, 2009 1:33 AM
"These two uses of the word heaven refer to two different things. The plural form is outer space, the singular form is the land Adam and Eve walked on."
That's a stretch and a half.
For me, the fact that we can't even agree on what "firmament" means illustrates well how biblical exegesis is all bullcrap and shouldn't be discussed outside of history and archaeology.
And it's just distracting us from properly acknowledging that big wall of bollocks up at comment #219.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 4, 2009 1:41 AM
"That the Genesis account does not match with modern accepted science is unargued. It doesn't. Genesis is correct and modern science isn't. So, deal. I won't pretend that Genesis is a science book. But that is not to say it doesn't accurately describe the history of the universe."
So the Bible is true in a made-up sort of way. Wonderful.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 1:43 AM
@Rexy Fox - It's not that much of a stretch. In fact it's pretty simple. God created "the heavens" in verse 1. Then He created another thing in verse 8 and called that 'Heaven'.
Are you of the opinion that the two uses of the word heaven both refer to the same thing?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 4, 2009 2:12 AM
Saying that now means nothing because it's ludicrous to claim otherwise - but only because we know reality contradicts is.
However, unless you can demonstrate that the authors didn't consider it to be a science book - perhaps by citing an appropriate passage in the bible - then you can't expect anyone to just accept that that's what they believed on your say-so.
Many Christians do believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why are they wrong and you right? You both rely on the same text for other tenets for you belief system, after all.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 2:20 AM
@WowbaggerOM - How can you know reality contradicts it if you don't understand what is being said? Are there two different things referred to with use of the term 'heaven' or are all those references to the same thing?
The author's considered it an accurate description of the history of the universe. That it doesn't use modern, scientific terminology is no failing.
Not sure what you're trying to say in commenting about other Christians taking Genesis literally. I believe in a literal reading of Genesis. Others who do so are also correct.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 4, 2009 2:34 AM
No, you don't. You believe in a metaphorical reading of it. Much like calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't mean it has five legs, your trying to change the meaning of the word 'literal' is a desperate attempt to have your cake and eat it, too - and it won't stand.
How do you know this? Are you psychic? A time traveller, perhaps?
You have to claim that that's what they meant because, if they didn't, you can't defend the work as inspired by a god who actually knew how the universe worked and the whole thing would collapse like the (ironically) proverbial house built on sand.
But until you can find a way to demonstrate that you know they weren't citing exactly what they believed to have occurred you're going to have these charges levelled at you.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 2:38 AM
No it's not a history book, it's a book of mythology. Mythology can have historical events and places in it, but it's primary purpose is not as a historical document. You're right, just because it's mythology it has no bearing on whether it is true or false. I'm not claiming otherwise. What I am claiming however, is that if taken as something more than myth, it's inadequacies show. Historically, it's still wrong. Do you think that's my main "attack"? No! it's just pointing to one of the spots where there's an absurdity in the bible. It's a minor one, and again you've completely missed what I was saying by focusing on a specific.And in terms of where there are points that are incontrovertibly wrong - I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME ALREADY! Without even leaving Genesis one. The earth was not created before the sun, day and night come from the earth spinning on it's access in relation to the relative central position of the sun. The earth now still orbits the sun, like it has for the last 4.6 billion years! The genesis account if taken literally puts the earth at the centre with another source for day and night in the days between day one and day four. Absolutely absurd. Everything we know about gravity, about the motion of the planets and stars, about black body radiation - all points to heliocentrism.
But here I was expecting you to actually be reasonable. Then you come out with this:
Seriously? You're sitting on a computer and you're saying such things? In case you're too thick to get it, the science of Cosmology deals with the history of the universe. We've observed galaxies over 13 billion light years away - meaning the universe has to be at least 13 billion years old. We've observed light from just 100,000 years after the big bang - 13.72 billion years ago. We've seen stars being born, stars dying and have worked out relationships between them. We have seen how celestial bodies behave and interact with each other, the fundamental building blocks of nature - it all points to a universe some 13.7 billion years old, with a 4.6 billion year old earth.The problem with saying it's not science but a history book? That science writes the history of the cosmos. If the events stated they happened differently to science, then it's contradicting the science. Quite simply here you are stating that the very device you are sitting on cannot work because the science that enables the computer to work is the very same science that allows us to measure the age of the universe.
And for a minute there I thought you were actually someone who understood what mythology means. I now know better!
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 2:46 AM
And that's it? Here you are dismissing the last 500 years of civilisation because of your literal interpretation of a book you clearly don't understand the intention behind. You bask in your ignorance of science, and proclaim with certainty that you know better than all the educated men and women of the last 400 years who have dared to study the environment and draw conclusions from what they find.If you want archaeology and the bible, go watch The Bible's Buried Secrets and Who Wrote The Bible? to at least see where the archaeology and biblical study stands today.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 2:58 AM
Are you of the opinion that two words that are spelled the same except for the preceding article -- "השמים" and "שמים" -- mean different things simply because you say so?
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 3:06 AM
Speaking of language, people who use the English language correctly don't use a apostrophe in a plural.
It doesn't have to use modern scientific terminology. It just has to not contradict modern scientific understanding by plainly stating that the stars, sun and moon were created after the earth and after plants. Or that birds were created before land animals.
How hard would that have been?
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 3:39 AM
I think Stripe here has been deprived of the basics. We should seek to correct his ignorance, the Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one...
A good series regarding the history of the universe. Nice introduction, explains the basics. Goes for a couple of hours.
If that's too technical for you, then start here. Only a few minutes long, in song form!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 7:04 AM
This is not a yes/no question. I called out your whole thinking and idjit philosophy as false. The presupposition is that your deity is needed for free choice. You are an idjit with a false philosophical argument, as such presupposition arguments are always false. Free choice is explained by evolutionary theory, without the need for your imaginary deity. We have no need for your imaginary deity. What part of that don't you understand?No, it is just a myth borrowed from other myths in the area at the time. What a dweeb you are if you don't understand the full history of how the books of the babble were written down, and what other myths were in the near-by societies. Without that information, you cannot be an expert we would believe. We see you as just another Liar for Jebus™.Posted by: Josh | December 4, 2009 7:43 AM
In comment #239, Stripe wrote (where "it" is Genesis):
Genesis is incontrovertibly wrong about Noah's flood. Period.
If the flood did happen, then God erased all evidence of the event and replaced that evidence with a rock record which demonstrates that there was no global inundation ~4000 years ago.
Genesis is wrong.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 8:17 AM
Why?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 4, 2009 9:33 AM
Well, what does "formless" mean? Does it mean "liquid" or something comparable? If so, yes. Does it mean "without any internal structure"? If so, yes again.
Also, see comments 185 and 206.
What, actually, is the point in trying to define "life"?
Matter is a form of energy.
You're making this up.
Is there anything to understand? I don't think so.
Blah, blah, blah.
Also:
1) "Singularity" does not mean whatever you think it means. Look it up already.
2) Why do you start from the assumption that there is an "ultimate unseeable"?
Some believe Gen 2 is not about the creation of mankind, but about the creation of the nation of Israel and no other. You see, for every nation there's a god who has created it and is its patron saint: Yahwe for Israel, Chemosh for Moab, and so on, 70 or 77 in total. That's what was believed in Israel when Gen 2 was composed. Traces of it remain throughout the OT.
Oh for crying out loud, you're a scientologist.
Hint for you: energy is not a yellow juice, and awareness is not one either. We conform to the First Law of Thermodynamics – none of the energy we derive from food goes missing; it can all be accounted for.
There he goes, denying the very existence of the entire science of biochemistry simply because he has no clue it exists. Dunning-Kruger effect again. <sigh>
Well, yes, plenty – I just don't talk about those, so you don't notice. Mwahaaah. =8-)
Bribe and/or blackmail enough cardinals. :-|
Technically, you know, I'm eligible as long as the powers that be don't google me. That's because I'm 1) male and 2) still haven't formally left the Catholic Church. (Doing so would probably startle my mother, flabbergast my grandparents, and as a student I'm exempt from the tithe, so I'll just worry about it later, if I'll even be in Austria then…) For obvious reasons, the cardinals always elect one of their own except for the odd hermit once every few hundred years, but they aren't required to. Any male Catholic can be chosen by the Holy Spirit who then persuades the majority of cardinals to vote for that guy. <vehement nodding>
Reality does not consist of objects, it consists of facts, if you want it in philosophical terms. Of course everything is more than the sum of its parts: it's the sum of its parts plus the sum of their interactions plus the sum of the interactions between the interactions plus and so on ad infinitum vel nauseam.
(This, incidentally, is why reductionism is so common in science, and why it's such a rip-roaring success. It simply means that, if we want to understand a thing, we best begin by trying to figure out its parts, then their interactions, then the interactions between the interactions, and so on ad infinitum vel nauseam, whichever comes first.)
You don't know enough about the interactions of matter, then. Learn some basic neurology.
These are not things. They are states of brain chemistry.
Importantly, both of these are plural, containing the plural ending -im (ים-).
There goes Stripe, believing the KJV is good enough as a translation to find out which words are used where. There goes Stripe, performing a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect for us.
The KJV is a great piece of Early Modern English literature. As a translation, however, it sucks.
(BTW, Antiochus, that's about as good as my Hebrew gets. I don't even know all of the letters. :o) )
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 9:53 AM
@Wowbagger - Genesis says the world and all in it was created by God in six days. I believe that. If that's not literal enough for you then I guess I might as well not suggest to you that I believe any other thing. :|
I am perfectly justified in believing the authors believed what they wrote until you show me evidence they knew they were writing that which they knew to be untrue. You won't find any such admission in the bible though.
@Kel - I haven't completely missed what you were saying by focusing on a specific. I just don't agree with your broader opinions. I figured that if I could convince you that it's no failing to refer to the moon as a light then we could move on. But if you're not willing to see that even in this small point the bible got something right then there is no point moving on to anything else.
I'm not ignorant and I have a very good understanding of science both through study and practice. I just happen to have a different explanation to most things than you do. But I'm also realistic enough to realise that the mountain of things that you believe is hardly likely to be upset by my opposition. Thus I invite you to consider carefully the very small moon-light question and I'll happily concede everything else you've brought up.
Deal? :)
@Owlmirror - No I'm not of the opinion that two words that are spelled the same except for the preceding article -- "השמים" and "שמים" -- mean different things simply because I say so. I believe they are two different things because the creation of each is described as two different events.
@Nerd - Actually, it is a yes/no question. Do you think people can choose? The only possible answers (unless you have no opinion on the matter) are "Yes" and "No". I guess you could claim to not know. So, Yes/No/I Don't Know. Which is it?
I understand perfectly that you have no interest in my deity, Jesus Christ. But surely you can answer a simple question, no?
@Josh - I'd be willing to talk about the flood. First can I get your opinion on the matter at hand? Do you think it was fair for the authors of Genesis to refer to the moon as a "light in the sky"? Or would you disqualify that statement as being scientifically incorrect and a failure on the part of the authors?
@Rev. BigDumbChimp - Why not believe in a literal reading of Genesis? ;)
Posted by: Josh | December 4, 2009 9:56 AM
Stripe--headed out the door to a meeting. Answer to your question in a bit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 10:03 AM
because every single bit of empirically derived bit of evidence points to Genesis being beyond wrong.
So I ask again,
Why do you believe in a literal reading of Genesis?
What steps led you to accept it as a valid explanation?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 10:06 AM
good grief
PROOF READ BIGDUMBDUMMY
Let's try this again.
Because every single bit of empirically derived evidence points to Genesis being beyond wrong.
So I ask again,
Why do you believe in a literal reading of Genesis?
What steps led you to accept it as a valid explanation?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 4, 2009 10:11 AM
Stripe, you can replace Nerd's "This is not a yes/no question." with "Yeah, so what?", and the rest of his post at #253is still valid and still makes the point that the question is flawed and irrelevant, because you assign meaning to "choice" that has no basis in reality. The question can certainly be answered, but it's still a meaningless question.
Was it fair for authors of Greek mythology to assert that the sun was a chariot driven by Apollo across the sky? Why or why not, and how are the two different, exactly?
You still want to insist they actually "got it right"?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 4, 2009 10:11 AM
They may well have done so. That just doesn't make them right. :-|
That's a very funny thing to say after everything you've posted on this thread, you know…
Come on. Explain the scientific method to us. :-)
Ah, so you believe Gen 1:1 is a sentence, because you have failed to read comments 54 and 127. In fact, it's a dependent clause…
What I just wrote about the KJV sucking as a translation. What I just wrote!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 4, 2009 10:14 AM
Why not believe in a literal reading of Niflheim and Norse creation myth? Again, please tell us how you believe they are different?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 10:14 AM
You believe in myths then. There is no confirming evidence, which makes you a delusional fool.And who the fuck said your opinion is the one that matters to us? We don't really give a shit what you believe. But don't expect us to share your delusions.I have said people can chose, but the reason isn't free will from your imaginary deity, but rather from evolution. In other words, the question is not relevant except to your delusional thinking. Any rational person sees the falsehood in your question. You appear to have sub par reading skills.Again with the sub par reading skills, and history skills. Jesus is the son of god, not god. Unless, of course, the babble bites its on tail. And there is no conclusive evidence that Jebus ever existed. These all add up to someone who doesn't understand evidence.Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 10:15 AM
@David Marjanović - Would you mind suggesting a good translation? To my mind the pluralisation has little impact. Regardless of the translation or the wording in the original language there seems to be no means by which the creation of two different things can refer to the same thing.
But I might be wrong. If so please feel free to explain it more clearly. :)
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 4, 2009 10:18 AM
You only went a "bit" wrong, i'm sure a repeat post was unnecessary, even for pharyngula.
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 4, 2009 10:21 AM
Genesis says the world and all in it was created by God in six days.. -Stripe
So you're a halfwit. Why did we need to know that?
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 4, 2009 10:21 AM
"But if you're not willing to see that even in this small point the bible got something right then there is no point moving on to anything else."
See also: The parable about the broken clock.
See, it's like this: if you consider everything from a human-centric point of view, then YES, the moon can be considered a "light in the sky". It's a big spot of light in the sky. I'll happily concede that, for a certain value of "light in the sky", the moon is a "light in the sky".
But that's really a trivial point. If the authors of the Bible had described it as an object that reflected the light of the sun, hundreds of years before man had the technology to make that discovery for themselves, then maybe we could believe that they were privy to some sort of knowledge bestowed upon them by a greater force in the universe. But no, they just describe it as a "light in the sky", along with all the other lights like the sun and the stars, which DO produce their own light.
So in the context, it would appear that the writers of the Bible did consider the moon to be a light-producing entity. You would probably consider that an "interpretation", but it's no more an interpretation than your reading of it as they just meant that the moon is a "light in the sky". If science hadn't made the discoveries that the moon is just a rock that reflects sunlight and the Earth orbits the sun, then you'd still interpret Genesis my way.
And really, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to facts about the observable world that the Bible has got wrong*. When you consider all the inaccuracies about the real world of things we know exist, then why should we claim it to be any kind of an authority on the world that it speaks about that we cannot see? Just because the preachers of the Bible seem like nice enough blokes?
* And as per your response to Kel in #257, now that I've given you your tiny victory on the moon thing, you have to concede all that, too. :)
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 10:41 AM
@Red/Celtic_Evolution - Is that a, "Yes"?
@Rev. BigDumbChimp - How about we stick to the scientific method? I haven't yet seen the evidence that makes it impossible. I understand that you, and most others here, think you have found such. :)
I can't tell you much about Niflheim and Norse. I know Norse is Scandinavian ...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 4, 2009 10:43 AM
I don't speak Hebrew myself, so I'll have to forward this question to Owlmirror, arachnophilia, and several other people… It's probably best if you try one that has "Study Bible" in its name, however.
So… have you still not read comments 54 and 127?
Gen 1:1–3 is one sentence: roughly, "at the beginning of Gods' creation of the heavens and the dry land […], Gods said 'let there be light." Then "the creation of the heavens" is explained in Gen 1:6–8, and "the creation of […] the dry land" in Gen 1:9. Only one creation of heavens in this text as far as I can see.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 4, 2009 10:46 AM
How about you explain the scientific method? I'd like to find out if you understand what it is (and what it's not).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 10:48 AM
You haven't seen it because you don't want to. Do you typically ignore all of established science as a rule or just when talking about the bible?
Do you take the Noachian flood as literal too?
Are you a Young Earther?
Posted by: Iain | December 4, 2009 10:52 AM
I've never heard this young earth baloney before but it does seem utterly absurd.
How is it possible to claim six 24 hour days when the sun didn't arrive on the scene until day 4 ? Err... what are they using to define a day or an hour ??
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 4, 2009 11:01 AM
-How is it possible to claim six 24 hour days when the sun didn't arrive on the scene until day 4 ? Err... what are they using to define a day or an hour ??-
The rotation of the earth, which didn't exist then. Isn't it obvious ;)
What I want to know is whats so magical about 24 and 7? It must have been a thrillingly important reason for god to keep to those exact times plus make the world spin that way.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 4, 2009 11:07 AM
Are you reading comprehension deficient? Or do you think that restating it somehow constitutes a victory? The relevant point is still "So frikkin what?"
How can you be so blindingly stupid as to make the first statement and not realize the pig-ignorance of the second statement as it relates to the first? You have proven with your own words, in successive sentences, that you have no idea how the scientific method works. Just mind-numbingly irritating.
Cute... but it still doesn't preclude you from being able to answer the question... nor the one about greek mythology and Apollo... but in typical low-grade stupid creationist form, you will not attempt to answer the questions that force you to extract your head from your arse... you'll just ignore them.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 11:14 AM
In the beginning, God built a house. He dug a hole for the foundation, poured concrete into the hole, and let it set, and he called the concrete the foundation. Then he added the frame and additional supports, laid the floors, and built up the internal walls, leaving space for the doors. Then he added on the external walls, leaving space for the doors and windows. Then he installed the doors and windows, and added the roof. When this structure was done, he called it a house.
Are the two instances of the "house" being made two different events, or one event that is first stated and then expanded upon?
If you agree it's the latter, then how does Genesis 1 differ?
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 11:35 AM
@David Marjanović - I have gotten around to reading comments 54 and 127. Though I'm not sure at the relevance of the second.
You're right .. if Gen 1:1 is a broad introduction (which makes sense) then there are not two descriptions of two things being created with the same name.
I could post a quote from Wiki as to what the scientific method was. Would that convince you? :)
OK, at the risk of opening myself up unto even more ridicule (is that even possible? ;) ...
1. Science starts with an assumption or an idea.
2. Science is done by making observations and comparing them to that assumption.
3. Science progresses by the elimination of ideas that are shown to be impossible.
Easy as 1,2,3. How'd I do? :)
@Rev. BigDumbChimp - Maybe you haven't seen the reverse because you don't want to. :) I don't ignore any established science. I simply do not accept it all. Yes, there was a global flood within the last few thousand years. Yes, I'm a YEC. Are you sending the men in white coats? :)
@Iain - It is possible to claim six 24 hour days when the sun didn't arrive on the scene until day 4 if one has an alternative source of light.
@Celtic_Evolution - No, I'm not reading comprehension deficient. I just expect simple answers to simple questions. I take it you don't think the answer has any relevance, but your answer is "Yes". Is that correct? I can be irritating, but please try and get over yourself for a minute and speak like an adult instead of ranting like a 5 year old.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 4, 2009 11:50 AM
Right... you just don't feel the same need to provide them yourself. You got an answer. And you're asking for it again, despite having gotten it, still somehow thinking it means anything. Yes, we can choose (duh)... AND, so fucking what?
That would be an insult if my 5 year old wasn't smarter than you. Now... care to address anything of substance that was asked of you? Nah... I didn't think so.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 11:51 AM
In other words, you ignore it.
Because you say so?
Where did the water go after this supposed flood?
Why did this flood leave no evidence of its having occurred?
And yet science has shown a young earth to be impossible. So you're ignoring science.
You certainly seem to be, since you ignore the points where you, and the bible, are shown to be 100% wrong.
Why is that?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 11:57 AM
Maybe some tutors and a heap of science books because you obviously have some learnin' to do.
I doubt it would help though, anyone gullible enough to accept the world wide flood story isn't likely to be able to grasp actual empirical based science.
What do you consider to be the best scientific evidence for the Noachian flood?
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 4, 2009 12:02 PM
Stripe,
1. Science starts with an assumption or an idea.
2. Science is done by making observations and comparing them to that assumption.
3. Science progresses by the elimination of ideas that are shown to be impossible.
That's not bad as far as it goes, although very incomplete. One thing you miss is the importance of integrating evidence of multiple kinds, another is constructing successively wider theories.
However, a global flood in the last few thousand years is one of those ideas that has been conclusively eliminated as impossible - as conclusively as the idea that the Earth is flat. This was done by devout Christian geologists in the early 19th century.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 12:04 PM
@Owlmirror - "House" in your story refers to the same thing. I can only safely refer to English translations in making a case for Genesis being different to your story, but let me try:
V1: This is the story about God creating the heavens and the earth.
V2 The earth was without form and it was covered in water.
V3 God made light.
V4 God divided the light from the darkness.
V5 End of first day.
V6-7 God made a firmament in the midst of the waters. The waters were on the earth, thus the firmament was on earth. There was water above the firmament and below it.
V8 God called the firmament Heaven. So Heaven was on earth. End of second day.
V9 God made the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place to let dry land appear
For me verse 9 is the first difficult bit. If heaven means the Heaven just made on the surface of the earth then it makes the description weird. But if heavens actually refer to the sky (a second use for the word) then it makes more sense. I take it you would solve the issue, as Dr. Myers seems to, by saying the water was not restricted to the surface of the earth (in V2) and thus the firmament was a "Sky dome" and the universe "aquatic".
Might I point to the difference between the phrases surrounding:
שָׁמָיִם
V8
...and...
הַשָּׁמַיִם
V9
Does the wording there make it possible that heaven in "God called the firmament Heaven" and heaven in "the waters under the heavens" are different things?
Certainly I have no problem seeing a distinction with the NKJV, but it seems some do not rate that high on accuracy. Can you suggest a reason why I should believe people here over the translators who created the NKJV?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 12:04 PM
Not to mention self checking by peer review, something impossible to do with religion.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 12:08 PM
Stripe was here before spouting similar nonsense. He's just another ignorant godbot pretending he is being scientific, without ever getting there. A real delusional fool.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 4, 2009 12:09 PM
That's the problem... while Stripe may be able to give a loose definition of how science works, he simply picks and chooses what he actually believes has been shown to be impossible.
Genesis states all plants were created before the sun. This is impossible, as plants (in general) NEED the sun in order to live. Even for 24 hours. But WAIT... we can ignore that by simply supposing that something may have allowed it that Genesis doesn't expressly indicate.
Feh... if you need that level of imagination (that even the authors couldn't be bothered to include) to make your silly fantasy work, you're hopeless, and stupidity will be your guide for the rest of your life.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 4, 2009 12:23 PM
Oh... and the other part of the scientific method that's important to remember, Stripe...
The "assumptions" or "ideas" have to be falsifiable in the first place. Magical conjecture does not fit.
A common misconception is that science, or people who use the scientific method, call god "impossible". Not true. Science does not say "god is impossible". It can't, as the concept is not measurable, observable, or testable in any way, and therefor is not falsifiable.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 12:26 PM
No, the "firmament" was above the earth.
No. God called the "firmament" by the same word that means "skies", or "heavens", -- which every reader of the original text would understand as meaning that which was above the earth.
The word means "skies" or "heavens" both times.
No.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 12:28 PM
@Owlmirror - Where does water generally go after a flood? The flood did leave evidence. Have you ever studied geology?
@Rev. BigDumbChimp - Would it surprise you to learn that I've been through my fair share of science training? :)
The best evidence for a global flood is ... the fact that all you people are so determined not to concede a very small and rather inconsequential point about the moon being a light. :)
@Knockgoats - Thanks for the encouragement. I've yet to read a definition of the scientific method that was complete. I figured I'd keep it as simple as possible. But you're damned if you do or don't, right? ;)
Sure, it's good to have different kinds of evidence all pointing toward your idea.
I have yet to meet a devout Christian who decides that one of the defining events of the bible is a fabrication. :)
Posted by: SEF | December 4, 2009 12:29 PM
@ Stripe #265:
It's not just H/heaven at stake there. It's E/earth too! Both get repeated in the text (day 2 for Heaven and day 3 for Earth).
If you don't understand the dependent clause thing which people have already tried to explain to you, perhaps you'll get this instead:
It's a classic example of telling them what you're going to tell them (viz about the creation of heaven and earth) before getting on with actually telling them (in variably more detail) and then (usually) finishing up with telling them once again what it is you just told them.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 12:34 PM
Considering some of us are professional scientists, keeping it too simple makes you look simple too. We can handle the big words.Posted by: Josh | December 4, 2009 12:37 PM
Okay, so I'm back in, but now I see that Rey Fox wrote in comment #268 pretty much (the first couple of paragraphs) exactly what I would have written as an answer. As such, I don't really feel like rewriting what has already been written.
I'll instead just say that I agree with the spirit of what Rey wrote in #268.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 12:37 PM
@Owlmirror - You say the firmament was "above" the earth, I say it was "on" the earth. Seems to me we have a difference of about 200km. So you think the water described in V2 filled the entire universe?
God used the same word to describe the firmament and to describe what the water was under, but that does not necessarily mean they referred to the same thing. That's why I asked about the phrasing around the two usages. Can you see no way for that to be possible?
Why does a reading of the NKJV make it possible?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 12:40 PM
What happened?
You seem to have a strange definition of evidence.
Posted by: arachnophilia | December 4, 2009 12:40 PM
@Dan-O: (#58)
well, it's missing a yud, but that might be a scribal error. i suspect that "crocodiles" was not the intended meaning -- it just happens to be the name given to "serpents" (lizards) who live in water in modern hebrew. but here's another usage of the same word (deut 32:33):
here, it's clearly paralleled with "asps" and is using the image of a venomous snakes as a metaphor for something else. elsewhere, a tanin is what moses' staff becomes. the image here is of a giant water snake, a sea serpent.we get "whale" from a certain tradition that regards these sea serpents as the livyatanim, the leviathans. (see psalm 74, which uses the two words in conjunction) livyatan happens to be the modern word for "whale," possibly because of the size connotations.
@TheVirginian: (#83)
not directly, no. it's clear that they share some common roots, but they are most certainly not parallels, in much the same way that the six days of creation do not parallel the actual history of the planet.
this is not present in genesis 1, however, a similar story is told in psalm 74, above. it's clear that some of these ideas remained in the tradition.
no directly. it's a reference to the leviathan, or using the leviathan as a symbol, and the leviathan is related to tiamat in some way.
no. there are references elsewhere in the bible to a "queen of heaven" (generally positive) and to asherah directly (generally very negative). there are also specific jewish traditions with characters adapted from asherah. namely, esther. (asherah, astarte, ishtar, esther, easter, all cognates). eve, chavah, one who gives life, could possibly be an attack on fertility godess worship in general, but it just doesn't read that way very well. adam doesn't even blame her -- he blames god for putting her there in the first place.
it's clear that mesopotamian culture directly influenced judaism, yes. but the parallels are not so direct. judaism is not just akkadian and sumerian myth re-written slightly.
@David Marjanović, OM : (#117)
i take it you mean "cognate." they're not the same word because they're in different languages. they do, however, share linguistic ties. and tehom is the "deep" not the darkness.
yes, this is the important part. it's definitely related to mesopotamian traditions, but fundamentally redefines everything.
@Stripe: (#121)
look up "hebrew cosmology" on google images sometime. all good sound exegesis shows that water is the primordial element, same as in sumerian and canaanite myths. further, careful reading shows no universe outside of the earth. it's the (flat) ground, and the dome of the skies, and that's it. everything outside is water. see genesis 6, where god opens holes in the skies, and out comes water. even further, this division of the water is vertical in nature. god divides the water below from the water above.
@raven: (#127)
no, there is only one god in the tanakh, and his name is "yahweh." his title is elohim, or "god." this would be sort of like confusing baal and hadad. the story you talk about is possibly present in the surrounding cultures, such as ugarit, but it should be noted that the authors of the bible went to great lengths to keep that sort of stuff out. and it should be noted that there's a substantial amount of mythological revision that went on. the hebrew deity might be a merging of concepts -- the ugaritic council, iluhim, the sumerian ea, etc. but it's wrong to simply compare it to any one of those things, or even the sum of those parts.
@David_Raikow: (#138)
only because the concept didn't exist. the universe was a flat area of ground, covered by a solid dome, and surrounded by water on all sides. in most cases, aretz translates as "earth" in the sense of "an area of land." in modern hebrew, it means "country."
@David Marjanović, OM: (#169)
elohim can be either plural or singular depending on grammatical context. for instance, genesis 1:1 says, b'reshit bara elohim..., which contains a singular verb, bara. had the verb been plural, elohim would be read as plural. since the verb is singular, so is the "god" of genesis 1. and the rest of the bible as well -- everywhere that yahweh/elohim is referred to, singular verbs are used. the only time he's ever spoken of in plural is when he talks to himself. "let us" seems to simply be a quirk of the language. (...where do you get 70 or 77 sons? the sons of god are never numbered to my knowledge. we're never even told any of their names, other than ha-satan)
i'm also not sure about this reading of psalm 82. it's reminiscent of psalm 2, david's coronation psalm -- kings in other nations were frequently treated as gods, and in the monotheistic judah, davidic kings were like sons of god. it's highly probably, given the tone of the bible in general, that this is a shot at the kings of the surrounding nations. but it could also be speaking to older polytheistic traditions. i'll have to look at it harder.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 4, 2009 12:43 PM
Oh. My. Dog.
That's it... I'm out.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 12:45 PM
Down (towards the lowest point) or up (evaporation). But there is no "down" when the entire Earth, including the highest mountains, is covered with water, and the atmosphere can't hold that much water.
Where did the waters of the global flood go?
It did not.
It's obvious that you have not.
That is completely moronic. Try again.
And the Hebrew word "מאור" does not just mean "light", but "light source".
Are you going to concede the "very small and rather inconsequential point" that the moon is not a light source?
Posted by: Josh | December 4, 2009 12:48 PM
I've studied a little geology; the flood didn't leave any evidence. Indeed, the rock record screams pretty loudly, with a single unified voice, that there was no global flood of any sort that resembles anything like the event described in Genesis.
There are people out there who insist that there is evidence of this flood in the geological record. Some of these folks are geologists; some aren't. Those who aren't are ignorant of the science. The geologists who support the flood, however, are lying. Worse yet, they know they're lying.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 12:51 PM
@Josh and Rexy Fox - Sorry, I missed #268.
That's half a concession, I guess. :)
Would it make a difference if you understood that common understanding of the time was that the sun and moon were gods? In that context do you not see how very justified the authors of Genesis might be in calling the sun and moon lights?
Posted by: CJO | December 4, 2009 12:52 PM
It's not a science book. It's a history book.
It's neither. Genesis is a compilation of myths. The perspective of its authors is utterly premodern and unconcerned with science altogether. There simply was no such thing in that worldview. Empiricism had not been invented.
Nor were the authors interested in history in any meaningful sense. The Bible is a collection of stories. It tells us, over and over, in a variety of more and less subtle ways, that we are in a literary world. Literate persons of the time and place knew what a story was, and what its functions were. What is wrong with you that you do not?
Posted by: kopd | December 4, 2009 1:00 PM
I once got bored and tried to estimate the volume of water that it would take to create a global flood as described in the Babble (15 cubits above the highest mountain). As I recall, it worked out to be roughly a quarter of the volume of the Moon or more - like 5 billion km^3 (and it was a sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation, so forgive me if it's wrong). I wonder what the energy requirement would be to evaporate that much water in the timeline given. Time to grab my calculator. :-)
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 1:02 PM
@Owlmirror. When the moon is up at night it is the only significant source of light for the earth. I see little extra challenge in one translation over the other.
Posted by: Stripe
|
December 4, 2009 1:07 PM
OK, nice talking to you folks.
See you next time. :)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 1:12 PM
This is fun.
Stripe, how high was the water over Mount Everest?
Fifteen cubits?
Mount Everest is currently somewhere around 29,029 feet or 8,850 m.
Everest is rising about 3-6 mm per year. so lets say 6mm just to be generous. So in 6000 years if the rate of Everest's hight increase are the same, means everest would have been around 8,814 m (8850 - (.006 * 6000)).
15 cubits is about give or take about a half a meter. So lets say the water would have been at 8,820 m.
Surface area of the earth is around 5.1 × 108 km².
Care to do the math?
Where'd all that water go?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 1:14 PM
Ahh yes, when the going gets tough, the willfully ignorant run away.
Posted by: SEF | December 4, 2009 1:17 PM
@ kopd #300:
Ah, but the bible babblers can claim that the earth was flatter back then (quite apart from allegedly being flat!). Unless the bible specifies the height of the highest mountain at the time, you can only come up with a minimum amount of water. You'd also need to know the supposed area of Earth at the time to get a volume. Their imaginary god could then make the water appear to go away by stretching and crinkling the Earth sheet to dump the water in new depths and raise some heights away from it.
Or their imaginary god could have pulled out the plug and let the flood bathwater, drowned babies and all, go down the drain into the waters of the universe below the flat Earth. Gravity is down for those flat-earthers and not in, after all. Plus god could always cheat some more to make sure the leaky Earth boat doesn't simply fill up from below instead.
Of course, they're still completely wrong about the geology and the (lack of) evidence for any such flood.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 1:21 PM
Which is of course what always happens when you start asking those kinds of questions.
But if there was a massive geologic event that caused Everest to raise to 8000 + meters, there would be geologic evidence of such a event.
There just isn't. Let alone every other mountain range in the world.
Posted by: Josh | December 4, 2009 1:21 PM
Perhaps, but discussing if the authors were justified at the time in using particular words is a rather different discussion than whether the words and concepts in the text are to be interpreted as being literally true, isn't it...?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 1:24 PM
That should say,
People who believe the literal interpretation of the Noachian flood as a world wide flood are a member of only three possible groups:
Gullible, stupid or both.
Posted by: Dania
|
December 4, 2009 1:54 PM
Stripe is the most irritating creationist I have ever encountered. He makes stupid and false claims, gets called on them, and then runs away like he did here (#302). He never concedes a point and usually ignores what others ask him. It's frustrating. Really, I don't know why he keeps coming back.
Posted by: Vanessa | December 4, 2009 2:03 PM
I will say "every creeping thing that creepeth" is a great line. And so appropriate.
I'm not even a trained scientist of any discipline and this seems clearly wack. Wasn't the moon created by a Mars-sized object slamming into the Earth? So there were grasses and trees when this happened? Why am I trying to apply logic to this. Thanks for the safety tip about his book.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 4:52 PM
That's certainly one hypothesis, but it's not currently set in stone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 5:53 PM
The fact is for arguments sake I did move on! I conceded the point and explained the greater problem of it. You can't just cherry pick where modern science fits the story (as you did), because you're going to get rebuked for where it doesn't fit. Then you put the qualifier that you think that where science and genesis contradict that science is wrong. Well then what's the point of saying it matches in the first place? Okay, demonstrate this. Can you give a paragraph or two on the formation of the solar system as is currently understood by science? Can you give a paragraph or two on what evolution is?
Of course not, you're trying to supplant scientific fact with mythology. And on what grounds? You haven't provided any. Somehow while I'm sitting in front of my computer I'm meant to take that the underlying physics that makes such a device possible is in fact wrong because it contradicts a myth made ~3000 years ago?You've got to provide some pretty solid evidence for how science can be so wrong when radiometric dating of different measures all correspond to the same age on earth and solar system rocks which corresponds to the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the sun given its size and position on the main sequence.
You've got to provide some pretty solid evidence of how science can be so wrong with the speed of light in a vacuum being a constant whereby the observation of stars in our own galaxy more than 6,000 light years away and galaxies more than 13 billion light years away. Does e not equal m times c squared? Or are you an Omphalos hypothesis kind of person?
I told you, if you count a mirror as a light because you shine a light on it, then I do concede. I've moved on from that, I've made a wider point and all you can do is harp on my problem of the black body radiation of the moon is not in our visible spectrum and that any light we do see off the moon is merely a reflection off the sun. I conceded, I'll even quote myself "For the sake of argument, I'll concede that a mirror is a light because we perceive light coming from the mirror."There I've conceded and conceded again. Now could you actually discuss how the science that clearly demonstrates a different account to genesis is wrong. You agree that the earth orbits the sun, that day and night are caused by the earth's rotation, so why does genesis contradict that?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 4, 2009 6:58 PM
It quotes a translation of Gen 1:1–3 as a single sentence. Comment 54 gives the original.
Fine so far, but that's only half. You explained falsification. Now explain parsimony.
O RLY.
And that's not even mentioning geology, mind you.
No, the earth wasn't anywhere in particular. It wasn't separate from the water yet. The separation happens in verse 9, after the waters above the firmament (which must be why the sky is blue) were separated from those below.
Because the NKJV is not a new translation of the original, but just a translation of 16th-century English into 20th-century English...?
Yes, except Easter! Easter is the good old Indo-European dawn, aurora in Latin, eos in Greek, and so on.
There's an apparently very similar Sumerian tale about the creation of a goddess that hinges on a pun: "life" and "rib" were both ti in Sumerian.
Yes, of course. Didn't want to use the technical term, what with YECs around.
Oops.
Yes, but I wonder how old that tradition of using singular verbs with this noun is. In terms of formation, elohim ('LHYM) is the plural of eloha ('LHH), as in elohenu ('LHNW) "our god", isn't it?
Yeah, I was probably referring to the Ugaritic religion.
Well, we're told in no uncertain terms (most clearly Judges 11:24) that Chemosh is the god of Moab the same way that Yahwe is the god of Israel. But it's true that we're not told he or anyone is a son of El Elyon.
Just for the record, it's not my idea, it seems to be pretty common nowadays.
As you'll have noticed, I brought this up myself: the people who wrote Gen 1 clearly had an agenda, and part of that agenda was monotheism or some close precursor to it, according to which the universe doesn't consist of deities but of things that the (more or less) one god has created.
So what?
The moon still isn't a light source. It's not a god, and it's not a light source. :-|
"Justified"? What do I care about "justified"? We're talking about "right" here.
Posted by: arachnophilia | December 4, 2009 10:53 PM
@Owlmirror: (#296)
in my opinion, this is probably the wrong way to go about this. of all the things in genesis 1 that are so very significantly in error, this is a very minor and very debatable point of semantics. we say similarly erroneously things all the time. why, in photography discussions, you'll hear the "overcast sky" referred to as a light source, even though that's clearly inaccurate. we talk about sun-rise even though we know it's the earth moving, not the sun.
@CJO: (#299)
this is actually surprisingly accurate even from a literary criticism perspective. there's some good evidence that the editors of the volume never intended it to be anything other than a collection of culturally important mythology. we know this because the internal consistency of the individual stories was more important that the continuity of the volume.
@David Marjanović, OM: (#313)
ah, yes, good point. my mistake. it must simply be a coincidence that "easter" and "esther" sound so alike, and are both celebrated around the same time of year and seem to relate to fertility. weird things happen, i guess.
and a similar story in greek mythology, where a woman screws up everything for mankind. but i suspect this is probably also a coincidence. i highly doubt the authors of the bible were as well-versed in sumerian as these sorts of allegations necessarily imply. rather, i think the similarities come about through a kind of background cultural exchange and narrative. similar ethnic groups, similar stories, and not a direct effort to copy or plagiarize. just adaptations of stories the cultures had in common.
all i can tell you is that it's older than the bible. it's somewhat natural to assume a kind of progression from polytheism into monotheism. in ugarit, we have stories of the iluhim which is the council of the god il and his sons. being the name of a group, it possible that singular verbs were used there -- but i don't know enough about this particular subject to say for sure. but the "council" idea is a logical intermediate between the surrounding polytheism and the jewish monotheism, and could help explain the strange grammar. and we do have some scant remnants of the council in the bible, as well, particularly in job.
this is a kind of... i think the word is "henotheism." it's evident in a few places in the bible, and is the closest the bible ever gets to polytheism. even so, nearly every instance were another god is named, that god is discreditted to the point of being fictional. see for instance 1 kings 18, the test of baal on mt carmel.
at this point, the authors of the bible are so far into monotheism that it doesn't even occur to them that there might be more than one "baal" and it'd be worthwhile to say which one.
another such reference occurs in deuteronomy 32:8+9, the original of which (as indicated by the LXX and DSS) apparently said that the nations of the earth were numbered according to the sons of god (ie: other gods), but that israel belonged to yahweh.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 5, 2009 7:38 PM
Oh, granted. It's just that I have in mind that it's a minor point among the many things a purportedly omniscient God could have gotten right -- the sun and distant stars are light sources; the moon and planets (wandering stars) are light reflectors.
Sometimes I wonder if even that was important...
Could you do me a favor and read Gen 3:6 in Hebrew? It looks to me like the grammar, and who does what, gets completely garbled. Shifting a single terminal "ה" over one space so that the text reads "לאיש העמה" would make it somewhat less insane, but that's dedication to writing things one way and reading or interpreting them another way for you.
Which reminds me: Have you read
The Text of the Old Testament, by Ernst Würthwein ? It's an interesting history, I thought.
Since I was just reading it, I note that Gen 1:26 uses plural verbs, but 1:27 uses singular verbs.
I see that Chris Heard expands on this in reviewing Avalos' End of Biblical Studies
And here's another commentary on Psalm 82.
Hm. I also note Gen 6:2 -- "בני־האלהים". Should that be read as "sons of the god" or "sons of the gods"?
Posted by: arachnophilia | December 6, 2009 5:10 PM
@Owlmirror: (#315)
admittedly, i don't read hebrew all that well. i'm not sure that i see what you're trying to say. the phrase in question is:
correct? that says, "and she gave also to her man with her, and he ate." the ה suffix is feminine possessive -- you don't exactly use those frequently in modern hebrew. see a couple of verses down, verse 15:"and between your seed, and her seed," which also ends with a ה suffix. now, transcription errors are possible, since the original was apparently written without vowel points or spaces. moving a letter from the begining of one word to the end of another would make sense in some cases, but not this one. there's no reason for a ה prefix on עם, and the two ה suffixes (both possessive) match quite nicely. further, it says, איש, "man" and not אשה, "woman." that little י is quite important.is this what you were confused about? or was there something else?
no, but that looks interesting.
yes, as i mentioned above, the only times you ever see plural verbs used to describe yahweh/elohim are when he is speaking about himself. and generally in whatever the equivalent of future tense is called, too. this is very peculiar, and i don't recall if this is limited to god alone, but i highly suspect it's a simple quirk of the language. as you say, in the very next verse, it switches back to singular.
yes, and i highly recommend that blog. (you'll probably note that i've read it for at least 2 years)
interesting stuff. it's fair to say that the relationship between yahweh and the other gods of the other nations was complicated at best, and there seems to have been some struggle even internally in judah betwen the yahweh-only-ists and the general polytheistic trends of the culture. this is addressed a number of ways in the bible, and psalm 82 is one such way. exactly how literally it's meant is open to interpretation i suppose.
if you're interested in a historical reading, btw, jesus quotes psalm 82 in john 10:33-36. it's clear that the author of john thought the "gods" in psalm 82 were quite human. but i doubt that reading is accurate -- a henotheistic context makes much more sense.
impossible to say. given the monotheistic nature of the text, i would tend towards "sons of [the] god," but that "the" is very curious indeed.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 6, 2009 6:02 PM
How embarrassing. I was reading the phrase as "the woman with her" (and that the "י" was a mater lectionis), and that shifting the "ה" over would make it read, more sensibly, "the man that was with her".
OK, never mind.
Yes, which makes Jesus' citation of it puzzling, I think -- if they're human, then calling them "gods" in verse 6 is sarcastic. Or so I would have thought.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 6, 2009 6:23 PM
Another question ... in 1 Kings 3:16-28, is it just me not reading it right, or does Solomon not specify exactly which mother is to get the child? It's traditionally interpreted as being to the one that speaks first, but it currently looks ambiguous to me.
Posted by: SEF | December 6, 2009 8:54 PM
I remember that the last time I read it I thought it notable that it failed to make that clear.
Posted by: Henry | December 6, 2009 11:18 PM
I think the Day Age fits in with all of the other accommodations that people make to avoid cooling off the warm, fuzzy feeling they get from their religious beliefs. The fact that it makes no sense is not a problem at all. Most people know just what they need or want to know to get through life and stay reasonably happy. That's why polls of basic knowledge in science, history, geography, math, etc. usually get such poor results -- the minority of people who actually need or want to know the information get the answers correct, and everyone else either guesses or says whatever makes them feel good. Atheists often ask, incredulously, "Wouldn't it be better to hold beliefs that you know are true?" Most people would respond "Huh?"
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | December 7, 2009 2:59 AM
No, that "the" is just in line with Hebrew grammar, or, specifically, Hebrew status constructs.
A term like "X of Y", when the definite article is added to it, becomes "X of the Y" in Hebrew, not "the X of Y".
Example:
"בית ספר" [literally: house of book] means "school".
"בית הספר" [literally: house of the book] means "the school".
"בני האלוהים" is a similar status construction, so the ה added to אלוהים does not signify an implied plurality of gods.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 7, 2009 3:24 AM
But in (nearly) every other location, "אלוהים" is a singular construction that is treated as God's name, which would not take a status constructor like that. It's always "בני ישראל", after all, and never "בני הישראל".
You could write "בני הישראלים" to indicate "sons of the Israelites/Israelis" -- but that implies a plural...
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | December 7, 2009 9:36 AM
1. No, "אלוהים" is not used as a name, but as an improper noun. Two examples of this can be found in the 1-st commandment alone: The construction אלוהיך (the יך ending means "your", as in אלוהיך=your god) is one that cannot be used with proper nouns. Here, the word אלוהים signifies "gods", as in "other gods". 2. A proper noun absolutely can be used in a status construction in the manner indicated. Just look at "בני ישראל" - your own example. A construction like "בני הישראל" is ungrammatical because a definite article cannot be attached to a proper noun (which אלוהים isn't).Posted by: Owlmirror | December 7, 2009 12:36 PM
Counterexamples - Gen 1:1-31:
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃
וכו׳
If "אלהים" was always used as an improper noun, then it would have taken a definite article there and in most places in that text.
I think you mistyped something here...
I would argue that "אלוהים" is used as both a proper noun in some places and an improper noun in others, and plural and singular, because the writers and compilers of the bits and pieces of the torah were themselves confused about what they were talking about.
Posted by: Pablo | December 7, 2009 3:25 PM
Nice work. I think that Parker hasn't really read Genesis. He wouldn't have said that.
Posted by: arachnophilia | December 7, 2009 9:09 PM
@Owlmirror: (#317)
or slightly less than literal, at least. i don't know that this reading makes the most sense, of course, but that's more of an issue of interpretation.
@Forbidden Snowflake: (#321)
er, yes. my mistake. i seemed to recall that it was lacking in other references, but it's not.
(#323)
yes, i think it's good to point this out. many of the above posts refer to yahweh and elohim as if they are different names for different entities. even in the christian churches, they tend to think of it as one of many "names of god." but in the hebrew bible, god has only one name. thanks for your grammatical examples of this.
it's possible that elohim began its linguistic life as a proper name -- but as it's used in the bible, it's just a title; an improper noun.
@Owlmirror: (#324)
i don't think being an improper noun necessitates the use of a definite article. but i'll let snowflake field that one.
it's possible that it varies a little -- at some point it fell out of fashion to actually use the proper name of god. instead of writing yahweh elohim (J sources) they'd just write elohim (E/P sources). this is arguably treating it a little more like a proper name. i believe E and P lack the definite article... but so does J, who just uses it like a title tacked onto the name.
i haven't seen any convincing evidence that any author of bible ever used to elohim as a plural while referring to yahweh. and "confused" may not be the right word. the bible was written by many different people, and most sources are fairly internally consistent, just not necessarily consistent with the other sources. authors disagreed about things. a big consistent body of work was not in the minds of these people. or even the redactors who compiled the books, either.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 7, 2009 10:40 PM
When the noun is the subject of a sentence? I'm pretty sure that it does. At least, I couldn't think of a grammatical-sounding counterexample.
An alternate idea:
http://www.biblicalheritage.org/God/el-goi.htm
(I'm not saying that it's as certain as the author proclaims, but it's something worth keeping in mind, I think)
One of the reasons I figure that it's both is because I looked at Genesis 22, which does have the definite article in most places -- although in 22:11, which (as I think I already mentioned a while back) is considered an R insertion into an E text, it lacks it. Genesis 20, which is the [sequentially] earliest E text, is also inconsistent in the use of the definite article, I think. I could keep searching in E texts, but I think even a few counterexamples demonstrate the inconsistency.
Doesn't the plural noted in Gen 1:27 demonstrate internal inconsistency?
Or maybe it's evidence of a very early use of the royal "we"/majestic plural. Hm. I see that in the Qur'an, Allah uses that construction quite a bit.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | December 8, 2009 2:15 AM
Owlmirror
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃
וכו׳
If "אלהים" was always used as an improper noun, then it would have taken a definite article there and in most places in that text.
Nope. A proper noun can be used in the place of Y in an "X of Y" status construction, but in that case, the whole construction is treated as a proper noun, so the definite article cannot be attached to it. Hmmm. I just realized that I don't know of other examples of the majestic plural being used/existing in Hebrew. The Wikipedia article doesn't mention Hebrew in its "non-western languages" paragraph.Your counterexample does seem convincing, so I tend to concede that אלוהים is alternatingly used as a proper and improper noun. I'll withold judgment on the "nearly always" part, since I probably don't know the text well enough to evaluate.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 8, 2009 5:31 PM
I see where I went wrong this time -- I misunderstood what "status construction" meant. If you had written "סמיכות", I would have got it.
Oh, and of course, I meant Gen 1:26 in #327 above.
I don't have an answer to the question about the majestic plural. I noted the use in Classical Arabic, and wondered if it's a feature of Semitic languages in general -- but that's all I know.
It's something that might be researched, I think, in proclamations by various kings of the Ancient Near East. It might also be the case that it's something that only occurs when a god (a chief god?) is speaking, and would appear only in legends or religious works of the ANE.
Posted by: Chitta
|
December 26, 2009 9:53 AM
Why are all you commentators so hung up on ONLY the bibilical view of 'creation'?
Numerous religious and folk traditions exist among the many races and religions of the world; which are often quite different from the Genesis account of creation.
Why shouldn't each of these myths, have their own lobby of 'scientific' excuse makers, and argue for the supposed brilliance of their own myth makers?. Each could also make their exclusive claim to 'knowing' the REAL story from their own 'only true god'.
The only way I can understand the minds of those who created any one of these creation beliefs (genesis or any other), is that these myths are formalised ways in which the human psyche tries to connect with and make sense of the universe and the relationship between a universal conscisousness and matter. In many traditions creation myths are tied with rituals that have to do with the mind-matter connection.
I don't believe that these myths should ever be seen as a physical explanation of the formation or creation of the universe.
All the sciences and applied technologies that we have developed to date, are too thoroughly integrated for any part of them to be declared false, without falsifying every other part - just for the sake of the book of Genesis, or the Mayan turtles myth or any other creation story.
It would make complete nonsense of all science and technology known and used today - we might as well blow ourselves right back to a pre-scientific age and stay put - Forget about benefitting from the discovery of nature and its workings through testable knowledge!