Sensual History

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The Bible's version however is just one version and is not more historically verifiable than any other creation myth such as the Norse myth of Ginnungagap for example. In fact I find the latter more plausible in that it more closely resembles the idea of the Big Bang theory.
Respectfully disagree. The Ginnungagap, or yawning abyss, speaks of a pr . This model is exactly what science has finally stumbled upon with its most recent findings.[/b]

Yeah I think we interpret the Ginnungagap myth differently. Yes Ginnungagap is the yawning abyss but inside that abyss occurred a collision of opposites. Namely fire and ice which I reckon would have been the closest thing to exact opposites that the ancient Norse could imagine at that time. This collision of opposing forces created an explosion of sorts from which fell the particles that make up the universe much like the Big Bang theory where an explosion created the spread of forming matter throughout what we konw as the universe. That is why I see similarities. I believe that the ancient Norse to the best of their ability imagined their own version of the big bang theory long before modern scientists began to wrap their minds around it.

Originally posted by Ullr
Yeah I think we interpret the Ginnungagap myth differently. Yes Ginnungagap is the yawning abyss but inside that abyss occurred a collision of opposites. Namely fire and ice which I reckon would have been the closest thing to exact opposites that the ancient Norse could imagine at that time. This collision of opposing forces created an explosion of sorts fro ...[text shortened]... ersion of the big bang theory long before modern scientists began to wrap their minds around it.

And to that, I would say, their knowledge was borrowed.

Nonetheless... our interpretations are closer than you think, as we're saying about the same thing. The point I'm making here is the Ginnungagap myth does not account for that state prior to chaos. In other words, it has creation deriving not from nothing, but from something, which is unlike the BB theory in that it says that prior to something, there was nothing.

The Bible speaks of the re-creation that followed a chaos, but it also informs us that prior to the chaos, God spoke everything into existence from nothing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And to that, I would say, their knowledge was borrowed.

Nonetheless... our interpretations are closer than you think, as we're saying about the same thing. The point I'm making here is the Ginnungagap myth does not account for that state prior to chaos. In other words, it has creation deriving not from nothing, but from something, which is unlike the ...[text shortened]... it also informs us that prior to the chaos, God spoke everything into existence from nothing.

I don't think Big Bang advocates make any claims about what preceded it. The Big Bang proceeded from a singularity. What preceded that is not known. So your contention that "nothing" preceded it is unfounded.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't think Big Bang advocates make any claims about what preceded it. The Big Bang proceeded from a singularity. What preceded that is not known. So your contention that "nothing" preceded it is unfounded.

Come on. You've got to be kidding. The BB theory suggests that everything began in a single point, that prior to single point, nothing was in existence. That's not a leap of faith; that's common sense.

Let's try to keep the conversation a few steps above debating what 'is' is, shall we?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Really? This is the best you can do?

Let's make it real simple for you, then. Give me the tests you employ and apply to any document which inform your decision to accept or reject it as reliable.

😵

It's enough. Until you are willing to engage the points I've raised, I don't see why I should continue to provide pearls before swine.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Come on. You've got to be kidding. The BB theory suggests that [b]everything began in a single point, that prior to single point, nothing was in existence. That's not a leap of faith; that's common sense.

Let's try to keep the conversation a few steps above debating what 'is' is, shall we?[/b]

Everything expanded from a singularity. What preceded that is unknown. I'm sorry if that answer doesn't fit your desired conclusion, but that's the way it is.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And to that, I would say, their knowledge was borrowed.

Nonetheless... our interpretations are closer than you think, as we're saying about the same thing. The point I'm making here is the Ginnungagap myth does not account for that state prior to chaos. In other words, it has creation deriving not from nothing, but from something, which is unlike the ...[text shortened]... it also informs us that prior to the chaos, God spoke everything into existence from nothing.

And I ask you where you think their knowledge was borrowed and from whom?

For the record I did not try to argue that Ginnungagap attempts to explain "that state prior to chaos". My personal belief is we don't really know the answer to that. I realize that your answer and belief is that it was God but then that begs the question whom or what created God? God is something and so God cannot have created something out of nothing because God himself would have been something and so there was more than nothing. If God exists, whom or what created God? Neither of us can answer this. Thus creation myth is myth regardless if it is Norse, Greek, Hindu, or Judaic.

All of these discussions are therefore just speculation on all our parts, Atheists included. Granted it is of a spiritual nature and belongs in this forum and is interesting discussion to have but ultimately speculation nonetheless.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Come on. You've got to be kidding. The BB theory suggests that [b]everything began in a single point, that prior to single point, nothing was in existence. That's not a leap of faith; that's common sense.

Let's try to keep the conversation a few steps above debating what 'is' is, shall we?[/b]

No; it does not suggest that prior to the single point nothing was in existence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Really? This is the best you can do?

Let's make it real simple for you, then. Give me the tests you employ and apply to any document which inform your decision to accept or reject it as reliable.

Specifically documents? That's good, I thought you were asking for a list of all methods of investigating all forms of evidence, which is unreasonable.

How DO anthropologists determine of a document is genuine? C-14 dating is not precise enough for historical dating.

The composition of the ink is one way I believe.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Specifically documents? That's good, I thought you were asking for a list of all methods of investigating all forms of evidence, which is unreasonable.

How DO anthropologists determine of a document is genuine? C-14 dating is not precise enough for historical dating.

The composition of the ink is one way I believe.

But then that's not enough, because what is written within it may be false. You need to cross-check other sources, see what type of source it is, compare with other forms of evidence, etc.

Freaky is just being disingenuous.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In response to mikelom's request for God's interactions/interruptions into human history, I offer several seminal events significant to man.

Creation
The Flood
The creation of a new race/ethnicity, the Jew
The virgin conception
The existence of the God/Man Jesus Christ
His death, burial, resurrection and ascension to heaven

Obviously, there are ...[text shortened]... resent the biggest, most significant historically-verified realities with which man must deal.

The Flood story doesn't stack up with the evidence. The Biblical account states that after the flood, around 5,000yrs ago, there were only eight people on the planet, Noah and his three sons Shem, Ham, Japeth and their respective wives.

mtDNA and Y-Chromosone analysis shows this isn't the case.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
mtDNA and Y-Chromosone analysis shows this isn't the case.

In what sense?

Originally posted by Palynka
In what sense?

5,000yrs isn't enough time to produce all the genetic variation in the human population we have today.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
5,000yrs isn't enough time to produce all the genetic variation in the human population we have today.

Do you have a link about this? I remember a thread some time ago where we came up with a back of the envelope calculation that seemed to be very dependent on how many kids per couple we considered...

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you have a link about this? I remember a thread some time ago where we came up with a back of the envelope calculation that seemed to be very dependent on how many kids per couple we considered...

The oracle of information has this page on Mitochondrial Eve -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

which has this text -

The variation of mitochondrial DNA between different people can be used to estimate the time back to a common ancestor, such as Mitochondrial Eve. This works because, along any particular line of descent, mitochondrial DNA accumulates mutations which survive at least until the next generation approximately once every 3624 years.

which was referenced from this study

Soares, P; Ermini, L; Thomson, N; Mormina, M; Rito, T; Röhl, A; Salas, A; Oppenheimer, S et al. (June 2009), "Correcting for purifying selection: an improved human mitochondrial molecular clock".

which can be found at this address

http://www.sciencedirect.com/[WORD TOO LONG].1

It looks like the text is too long. It's found at the bottom of the wikipedia page.