Comments for Pharyngula

Comment on Do the creationist shuffle and twist! by Amitash

Amitash — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:02:31 +0000

It’s not the first time that creationists misinterpret scientific understandings to support their not-backed-up-by-evidences ideologies. This is really frustrating because they are just not ready to accept the evidence even when it is clearly presented to them. Now, this is a threat to our own species because we are always running away from the truth.

Comment on Do the creationist shuffle and twist! by Andrea

Andrea — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:11:38 +0000

I love your phrasing describing meiosis with an inversion, “the two chromosomes have to get all twisty and kama-sutraey to line up all the genes”. It’s not only visual and humorous, but also reminds readers that meiosis is the process of producing gametes. Wonderfully clear explanation of an interesting paper, thank you!

Comment on Mary’s Monday Metazoan: It’s a jelly day by thi cong n?i th?t

thi cong n?i th?t — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:07:50 +0000

Khac v?i ki?n truc su, h?a si thi?t k?,xay dung noi that la ngu?i ch?u trach nhi?m chinh trong vi?c t?o cho khong gian ngoi nha b?n th?t trang tr?ng, h?p ly, d?p m?t va giau tinh ngh? thu?t; t?o c?m giac ?m cung va g?n gui b?ng nhi?u v?t li?u n?i ngo?i th?t d?c dao. Ph?n l?n cac cong ty thi?t k? n?i th?t (TKNT) d?u th?c hi?n t? A t?i Z cac d?ch v?. T? vi?c tu v?n, cung c?p cac v?t li?u, d?n thi?t k?, th?c hi?n. Di?u do co nghia la h?

Comment on The KEY to understanding Genesis! by Eric Lund

Eric Lund — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:03:10 +0000

I just dont understand how this guys feels the need to reconcile genesis with science when the Bible was written by people, who I’m pretty sure weren’t witnesses to creation.

There is a certain subset of Christians who feel that they have to take the Bible literally, every word of it, or their worldview comes crashing down. Their worldview is so fragile that they are correct to fear its crashing when they find they can’t take the Bible literally (more than a few atheists arrived at that view in precisely this fashion). But, as you say, the Bible has enough internal contradictions (of which the two creation stories is but one example) that it takes a fair amount of cognitive dissonance to maintain the illusion that it’s possible to take the Bible literally.

Comment on The KEY to understanding Genesis! by Russell

Russell — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:09:28 +0000

Who needs this upstrart when my alternative geochronology is still going strong ?

Comment on The KEY to understanding Genesis! by Cat

Cat — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 03:58:12 +0000

It’s always odd when people take some parts of the Bible so literally… I just dont understand how this guys feels the need to reconcile genesis with science when the Bible was written by people, who I’m pretty sure weren’t witnesses to creation. I’ve always been of the opinion that the creation story was really just a nice tale about saying that God created everything ..considering there’s more than one version in the Bible, I don’t know why you’d think it was set in stone.

Comment on The KEY to understanding Genesis! by TomS

TomS — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:52:47 +0000

One doesn’t need to do calculations. Just the order of events is enough. The flying creatures, according to Genesis 1 preceded land creatures, but according to standard science, it’s the other way around. One of the two is wrong. Also, there’s a problem with there being days and nights before the Sun, Moon and stars were placed in the “firmament”. And it’s worth noting that the Bible doesn’t have a word to say about the majority of life on Earth. And, by the way, there is nothing about the majority of the Universe: dark matter and dark energy. On what days were those created?

Comment on The KEY to understanding Genesis! by Rob Crompton

Rob Crompton — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:19:44 +0000

So a day is lots longer than a day. And when we get to Gen 5:5 which tells us how old Adam was when he died, a year is presumably lots shorter than a year. Makes perfect sense.
(And sense in that sentence is understood in the same sort of way – it means something quite different from sense.)

Comment on The KEY to understanding Genesis! by Jack Golan

Jack Golan — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 16:15:30 +0000

Without getting into the creation-evolution debate, Gen. 1 offers a literary clue that might indicate at least part of the author’s thinking.

Gen. 1:2 sets the stage with “The earth was without form, and void.” The act of creation, over the next six days, involved defining forms and filling each one’s void with content — not unlike defining the structure of a database and then populating it with information.

On day one, God created the forms day and night. On day four he filled them with the sun, moon and stars.

On day two, God created the forms of sea and sky. On day five, he populated them with sea creatures and birds, respectively.

On day three, God created the form land — already covered with vegetation — and separated it from the seas. On day six, he populated the land with animal life and man.

Considering Gen. 1 on its own terms, as the author structured it, avoids trying to validate the Bible by fitting it to some external standard and doesn’t require plants created on day 3 to survive until the sun shows up on day 4 … however long that period is supposed to be.

Comment on The KEY to understanding Genesis! by jrkrideau

jrkrideau — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 15:37:42 +0000

I think I’m staying away from airplanes!
Even the pyramid inch makes more sense.