If you want more Creationist "Theory", here is the first video in an entire series done by Kent Hovind. He is the guy who started up Dinosaur Adventure Land, a creationist theme park in the states. He is currently in jail due to tax fraud.
The story in Genesis 1 most likely originated as a response to the Enamu Elish which the exiled Judaeans would have become familiar with after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. It was an adaptation of what was believed to be the consensus explanation for origins, but was "sanitised" to suit peculiar Jewish religious sensibilities. It was a way of acknowledging the general truth of the Babylonian account, but adjusting it in such a way that suited Hebrew culture. Genesis 1 is actually a great illustration of ancient religious syncretism, which is pretty ironic, really, considering that those who take it most seriously today are also the same people who eschew the notion of religious cross-contamination.
I've always found it interesting that Abraham's name seems closely related to the Hindu god of creation, Brahma or the caste of Brahman.
I wish he could post more as I find his posts give me pause for thought.
Growing up in the church I find it interesting yet difficult to categorize his beliefs. He is far, far more knowledgeable than me, yet has no clear box to put his beliefs in
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
Growing up in the church I find it interesting yet difficult to categorize his beliefs. He is far, far more knowledgeable than me, yet has no clear box to put his beliefs in
I spent a good portion of my life in a church also. I also have an open mind and love to read posts by Textcritic to see if he has any information and or insights that may change the way I look at things.
I noticed Darren Aronofsky has a movie about Noah coming out. I'm interested to see how "biblically accurate" it'll be considering how subversive his films tend to be.
Just started watching debate. So far Ken Ham is killing it. Like Bill Nye a lot but he's disappointed so far...his opening statement is ridiculous. Ham opens up by saying there's 2 different kinds of science, and Nyes response is "Well CSI only talks about one kind of science so it must be true." Really Bill?
Can't wait to see the rest here.
__________________
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
Just started watching debate. So far Ken Ham is killing it. Like Bill Nye a lot but he's disappointed so far...his opening statement is ridiculous. Ham opens up by saying there's 2 different kinds of science, and Nyes response is "Well CSI only talks about one kind of science so it must be true." Really Bill?
Can't wait to see the rest here.
At the risk of spoiling this for you, I'd like to say the following:
I don't think Nye did particularly well in the debate because he was basically in a no-win situation. There are two ways I look at this debate from Bill Nye's perspective:
1) He directly addresses the ridiculous assertions and semantic arguments that Ham presents as facts; or
2) He ignores Ham's pseudo-science, doesn't engage Ham in a semantics debate and just presents the case for evolution from a scientific perspective without trying to define "what is science "
I don't think Bill Nye was suggesting that because it's on CSI that it must be true. I think was he was trying to say is that science, real science, is tested every single day and proven to be correct and accurate, CSI is a TV representation of an example of that.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
^
I will say that I was also not overly impressed with Nye, but he does get much bettering the question period following the presentations. I disagree with this, though:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
At I don't think Nye did particularly well in the debate because he was basically in a no-win situation...
You are probably right about his situation being "no win", but I disagree that that is what was holding him back. From my perspective, he simply wasn't nearly as polished or as organised in his presentation than was Ham. Of course, this will come as little surprise to those who track the movement, and it is really a shame. Creationists are charlatans and propagandists. You can't find ANY success as one if you can't effectively employ anecdotes, pseudo-science, and manipulation to persuade your audience that your wholly scientifically bankrupt position is in any way to be taken seriously.
I personally think there are better presenters who could have done a much better job. It would have been great to see Kenneth Brown in Nye's position, or AronRa for something completely different.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
If it's "biblically accurate" it probably would be somewhat boring...
Why would you say that? Personally the Noah's ark story (or stories) in the Bible—and their source myth in the Atrahasis epic—is a really great story. Who doesn't love violence, sex with angels, natural disasters, monsters and gods all rolled into single a yarn?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
How completely unsurprising of you to have utterly missed the whole point of the linked op-ed piece:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yale Professor Joel S. Baden
"Even if we acknowledge, as we probably should, that the biblical authors learned the Flood story from their neighbors – after all, flooding isn’t, and never was, really a pressing concern in Israel – this doesn’t make the Bible any less authoritative.
"The Bible gets its authority from us, who treat it as such, not from it being either the first or the most reliable witness to history.
"There is no doubt that the discovery of this new ancient Mesopotamian text is important. But from a biblical perspective, its importance resides mostly in the way it serves to remind us that the Flood story is a malleable one."
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
^
I will say that I was also not overly impressed with Nye, but he does get much bettering the question period following the presentations. I disagree with this, though:
You are probably right about his situation being "no win", but I disagree that that is what was holding him back. From my perspective, he simply wasn't nearly as polished or as organised in his presentation than was Ham. Of course, this will come as little surprise to those who track the movement, and it is really a shame. Creationists are charlatans and propagandists. You can't find ANY success as one if you can't effectively employ anecdotes, pseudo-science, and manipulation to persuade your audience that your wholly scientifically bankrupt position is in any way to be taken seriously.
I personally think there are better presenters who could have done a much better job. It would have been great to see Kenneth Brown in Nye's position, or AronRa for something completely different.
As you know Aron is a friend of mine, he has requested a debate with Ham, Ham said yes but not with you lol...
Why would you say that? Personally the Noah's ark story (or stories) in the Bible—and their source myth in the Atrahasis epic—is a really great story. Who doesn't love violence, sex with angels, natural disasters, monsters and gods all rolled into single a yarn?
Sounds like any season of True Blood...
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
"
