1. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157650
    08 Apr '10 14:22
    Originally posted by Penguin
    Ancient creation myth, thought up by people from a period when no-one knew better. Now that we do, it should be treated the same as all the other creation myths.

    --- Penguin.
    Like you know how it started, I think you are confusing your beliefs with
    reality?
    Kelly
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    09 Apr '10 00:18
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Which camp are you in, literal or metaphor?
    Literal. I have no idea what metephor is even being considered here.
  3. Joined
    08 Oct '06
    Moves
    24000
    09 Apr '10 06:08
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Like you know how it started, I think you are confusing your beliefs with
    reality?
    Kelly
    Science does have a pretty good idea. However, it would be contradictory to a literal Biblical interpretation.
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Apr '10 07:24
    Originally posted by Penguin
    Ancient creation myth, thought up by people from a period when no-one knew better. Now that we do, it should be treated the same as all the other creation myths.

    --- Penguin.
    what do we know?
    big bang? doesn't disprove god and it has flaws.
    evolution? doesn't disprove god, supports my metaphor theory and it has flaws. (like all theories do).

    so what do we know that would make us treat this as myth?
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Apr '10 07:25
    Originally posted by whodey
    Literal. I have no idea what metephor is even being considered here.
    like literal 6 days? literal flood over the whole world? literal humanity coming from 2 people?
  6. Joined
    08 Oct '06
    Moves
    24000
    09 Apr '10 07:37
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi

    so what do we know that would make us treat this as myth?
    Couldn't this question be posed to any creation story that is now considered myth?
  7. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    09 Apr '10 08:08
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    what do we know?
    big bang? doesn't disprove god and it has flaws.
    evolution? doesn't disprove god, supports my metaphor theory and it has flaws. (like all theories do).

    so what do we know that would make us treat this as myth?
    We are not trying to disprove god here (god is not disprovable), we are discussing the Genesis creation story.

    The 'big bang' theory is the best model of reality that we currently have, although I agree there are still plenty of questions and a more accurate model may well come along in the future. It describes things better than any other theory and certainly better than all the ancient creation stories.

    Evolutionary theory is the best model we have for explaining the complexity and variety of life around us and through history. Again, a better model may come along but at the moment, it describes its domain better than any other theory, certainly better than all the ancient creation stories, including Genesis.

    We should treat it as myth because we know that the universe is 14 billion years old and the Earth is 4 1/2 billion years old. We know the Earth took far more than a few days to form, we know that life didn't appear till nearly a billion years after the planet formed.

    None of this was known at the time the Genesis story was written. We can see similarities between Genesis and many other ancient creation stories that are treated as myths. Why should we not treat the Genesis story as a myth as well? The story is entirely consistent with the religious and social environment at the time and inconsistent with the empirical evidence we have since gathered about the universe.

    Note that when I say we 'know' in the above, I am obviously using the scientific meaning: it is the logical conclusion based on the evidence.

    --- Penguin.
  8. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    09 Apr '10 08:13
    'God created the heaves' ... LOL! Corresponds with the notion that Crow vomited up the Earth.
  9. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    09 Apr '10 08:14
    Originally posted by josephw
    I wouldn't hurt a cute little fuzzy like you! 😉
    Don't you mean 'furry'?
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Apr '10 08:23
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    so what do we know that would make us treat this as myth?
    Its not what we know, but rather what we don't know. Until evidence for it surfaces, it should be treated as a myth just like any other myth. You don't believe other myths until they contradict science, you start of with skepticism surely?
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Apr '10 09:00
    Originally posted by amolv06
    Couldn't this question be posed to any creation story that is now considered myth?
    well we have the whole faith thing. we don't need to prove anything.

    science however doesn't have that luxury. and while we don't have proof of god existance, we also don't have proof of his inexistance. just like with the higgs boson. we might find it when we turn lhc on but we might not. there is no experiment to find god.

    i accept it when you say: There is no proof that god exists, as such i am not comfortable saying he exists. I will live my life and plan considering he doesn't exist.

    i don't accept it when you(any atheist) say: I haven't a proof that god exists therefore he surely doesn't exit.
    You take your lack of knowledge on a subject and you advance it to fact. That is not scientific.
  12. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Apr '10 09:03
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Its not what we know, but rather what we don't know. Until evidence for it surfaces, it should be treated as a myth just like any other myth. You don't believe other myths until they contradict science, you start of with skepticism surely?
    exactly, start with skepticism. but there is a difference between being a skeptic and being absolutely sure of something as some are.

    you don't have proof that higgs boson exists, yet you search for it though. and some realy think it doesn't exist but still they search for it hoping they find proof that it really doesn't exist.

    i really think god exists. i don't have proof of him but i search for him(or her) and hope he is there waiting.
  13. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Apr '10 09:09
    Originally posted by Penguin
    We are not trying to disprove god here (god is not disprovable), we are discussing the Genesis creation story.

    The 'big bang' theory is the best model of reality that we currently have, although I agree there are still plenty of questions and a more accurate model may well come along in the future. It describes things better than any other theory and cert ...[text shortened]... the scientific meaning: it is the logical conclusion based on the evidence.

    --- Penguin.
    oh excelent, you clarified your position. and i fully agree with you. from a scientific point of view, you are exactly right.

    science has no use for maybes.
  14. Joined
    08 Oct '06
    Moves
    24000
    09 Apr '10 09:252 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    well we have the whole faith thing. we don't need to prove anything.

    science however doesn't have that luxury. and while we don't have proof of god existance, we also don't have proof of his inexistance. just like with the higgs boson. we might find it when we turn lhc on but we might not. there is no experiment to find god.

    i accept it when you say: your lack of knowledge on a subject and you advance it to fact. That is not scientific.
    well we have the whole faith thing. we don't need to prove anything.

    But as an atheist why should I distinguish between the Christian story, and stories of older mythologies. From an atheistic perspective, would it not be fair to call the Christian story a myth?

    I'm not sure if the rest of the post was a response to me.

    That said, if it was, I take issue with the following:

    i don't accept it when you(any atheist) say: I haven't a proof that god exists therefore he surely doesn't exit.
    You take your lack of knowledge on a subject and you advance it to fact. That is not scientific.


    Is this not a straw man? Do you know of any atheist who would make this claim? I certainly would not. Furthermore, I don't know any atheists that would. Maybe somewhere out there they exist, but I could guarantee that they are in the minority.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Apr '10 10:181 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i don't have proof of him but i search for him(or her) and hope he is there waiting.
    And what does any of that have to do with whether or not we should take the early chapters of genesis to be an ancient creation myth equal to any other such myth?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree