Strikingly rational in its simplicity, this man's perspective quietly mocks the insipid hostility of the debate between creation and evolution, religion and science...
excerpt from Discover Magazine.... Topics from speakers at upcomming 2003 Ted Med (see TEDMED.com)
Keith Black, neurosurgeon and director, Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
"If you look at the Book of Genesis, which describes the creation of the universe, what strikes me is that the sequence is exactly the way we explain it scientifically. First there was light, which corresponds with the energy of the Big Bang. Then God separates the days and nights, which is what happened when the planets formed and started rotating around the sun. Then God separated the land from the sea, which was the next step in the scientific view, then came animals, then came man. If you go through all of those steps, you have to ask yourself, What is the probability of someone getting that sequence exactly right 2,000 years ago? My belief is that essentially the brain has within it a precoded neural circuitry that contains the answer to the origin of the universe. When we quietly meditate, we are accessing information that is already there. We already have the answer. That is essentially what my talk will focus upon."
cheers, -veridicus
"Scientia Est Potentia"
LinK BeKon -(DPSO)Liquid Chaoz
-- _______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.outgun.com
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
Re: virus: creation, big bang...whats the difference?
« Reply #1 on: 2003-03-26 19:23:21 »
Careful, veridicus x.
Don't make me formulate a treatise on how dumb the popular version of Yahweh is.
Yahweh is a brutal, stupid, barely-pseudo historical myth that deserves not one pulse of a rational being's heart.
Walter
veridicus x wrote:
> Strikingly rational in its simplicity, this man's perspective quietly > mocks the insipid hostility of the debate between creation and evolution, religion and science... > > excerpt from Discover Magazine.... > Topics from speakers at upcomming 2003 Ted Med (see TEDMED.com) > > Keith Black, neurosurgeon and director, > Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center > > "If you look at the Book of Genesis, which describes the creation of the universe, > what strikes me is that the sequence is exactly the way we explain it scientifically. First there > was light, which corresponds with the energy of the Big Bang. Then God separates the days and nights, which is what happened when the planets formed and started rotating around the sun. Then God separated the land from the sea, which was the next step in the scientific view, then came animals, then came man. If you go through all of those steps, you have to ask yourself, What is the probability of someone getting that sequence exactly right 2,000 years ago? My belief is that essentially the brain has within it a precoded neural circuitry that contains the answer to the origin of the universe. When we quietly meditate, we are accessing information that is already there. We already have the answer. That is essentially what my talk will focus upon." > > cheers, > -veridicus > > "Scientia Est Potentia" > > LinK BeKon -(DPSO)Liquid Chaoz > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Get your free email from http://www.outgun.com > > Powered by Outblaze > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--
Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!"
Re:virus: creation, big bang...whats the difference?
« Reply #2 on: 2003-03-26 20:48:15 »
[Hermit] Always read material before accepting assertions about it. I'll ignore the time problem even if I shouldn't. The reason these were meant to be literal days is clear. They have "mornings and evenings." I'll even be generous and ignore all of the problems of creators (where did it come from) and creation (what mechanism was used).
Source: New International Version (NIV)
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The BB occurred some 14 billion years ago.
The Sun formed about 4.6 billion years ago.
The Earth coalesced from dust and gasses spiraling around the sun a little over 4 billion years ago.
2 Now the earth was [Or possibly became] formless and empty,
The Earth was not "formless." As soon as the tumultuous mass of material it formed from drew together, it formed an oblate spheroid or would have been thrown apart by centripetal forces.
darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Notice that we still don't have a sun.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Either this does not recognize that the sun is the source of light, or this places the formation of the sun after the formation of the Earth. Wrong.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
Not realizing that the Earth is round, and sunlight reaches us in almost parallel rays, the relationship between day and night is clearly not comprehended. In addition, day is not seen as intrinsic to "light" which has already been established.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
Of course, the "sky" existed before the Earth as the Earth actually formed first, and then captured gases with its gravity. But here we have the sky being "created" "between the waters." Can you explain how gas separates water? No, I can't either. Not very convincing stuff is it?
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.
This appears to be related to the Babylonian mythos of the World from Water. Unfortunately for the supposed chronicle, land undoubtedly formed long before any liquid water could have occurred. And naturally, as water condensed, gravity urged it into many locations. Not one.
10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Ok so we have a mythical single body of water being named along with the land. This is supposedly a big deal.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
I won't go down the path of analyzing this assertion and what it leaves out at this time, other than to mention that the non-seed bearing plants undoubtedly came first.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
Oops, and now the other stars are "created"? Those much older than our own sun too. Somehow he also needed to recreate the Sun, despite having done so twice before (did it go out)? And the moon, which in reality, as opposed to myth, came long before plants - or the Earth, as lunar rock has been dated to 4.52 billion and 4.5 billion. Another chronology glitch. And of course, it is difficult to comprehend how chlorophyll containing plants lived without the sun
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
Bizarre. Land animals came after water animals, but birds descended from land animals. Fortunately the fish have not filled the seas, nor the birds the Earth. Notice that none of these life forms - or indeed plants - occurred independently. Even today, humans share in excess of 25% of their DNA with cabbages. For Christians, and those repeating Christian apologetics on the CoV list, the percentage may be higher.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [Hebrew; Syriac all the wild animals] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
While the creationists take "each according to its kind" to deny evolution has ever happened, scientists know that there has been a dance of life, as species developed, died out, changed and were replaced. This has happened to man too, over the course of the last few million years. During most of the period for which man-like creatures have existed, we were largely indistinguishable from apes. So if we take this image as a picture of the gods, then they apparently look a lot like orangutans. Finally, I don't notice man exercising much "dominion" over the other animals. Indeed, a major problem today are bacilli which have, due to stupidity, become resistant to the drugs which science developed to control them at a time when the church still denied their existence.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.
Genesis 2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [Or ceased] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Yeah. The bushed out immortal, omnipotent god.
Now this was the first creation story. As you can see there are a lot of troubles with it. But this is not the end. There is a second creation story.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens
Same time gap trouble as before
- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [Or land] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [Or mist] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground ( adamah ); it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20).] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Now here we have men fashioned out of mudpies (also in our genetic code?) and which are created before plants, animals or even rain. Which would have made creating mudpies difficult only the water no doubt came from the springs which allegedly existed before the rain. That anyone can imagine that this is meaningful or does not conflict with the scientific chronology, I have a word for you. Nonsense
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.
So now trees come after man. And the apologists try to claim this makes sense?
<snip>
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
More mudpies! And what happened to the fish this time around? And the sun, moon, stars etc? Not needed for life.
But for Adam [Or the man] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [Or took part of the man's side] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [Or part] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, [The Hebrew for woman sounds like the Hebrew for man] ' for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
Of course, today we understand genetics. And we would wonder about the last chromosome pair and wonder if Eve had a beard. But that probably didn't worry those old prophets.
[Keith Black] "If you look at the Book of Genesis, which describes the creation of the universe, what strikes me is that the sequence is exactly the way we explain it scientifically.
[Hermit] As we see above, either Keith Black does not read the bible, or Keith Black does not read scientifically acceptable works, or Keith Black tells lies. There is no other way of explaining the contradiction here.
[Keith Black] First there was light, which corresponds with the energy of the Big Bang.
[Hermit] Not at all. The BB would not be visible for a very long time after it occurred. The Universe was far too dense to admit light to pass through it. This assertion is rather like watching a dog peeing on the sofa, and saying that this was predicted by the sentence, "the cat sat on the mat." It only works so long as you "translate" it correctly, i.e. a cat is like a dog as both have four legs, a mat is like a sofa as both involve fabrics and weaving, and "sat" is another way of saying "peeing" if you don't want to offend somebody. This glosses the point that once you begin such translations (with no key in site), then anything is possible. "The cat sat on the mat" could equally mean, "The car parked in the garage" only the words are longer and would confuse the kind of people who offer such pale excuses of analogy in place of falsifiable knowledge and rational argument.
[Keith Black] Then God separates the days and nights, which is what happened when the planets formed and started rotating around the sun.
[Hermit] The planets formed from dusts and gases which were already in orbit and which preserved their rotational inertia. In addition, rotating around the sun has nothing to do with day and night (day and night are caused by the Earths rotation around its own axis).
[Keith Black] Then God separated the land from the sea, which was the next step in the scientific view, then came animals, then came man.
[Hermit] Again he glosses over the major chronology problems, and secondly, I don't remember a "step" where "God separated the land from the sea" in any of my textbooks. Perhaps the fundamentalists have other books.
[Keith Black] If you go through all of those steps, you have to ask yourself, What is the probability of someone getting that sequence exactly right 2,000 years ago?
[Hermit] Well there are a varying number of steps involved, but no more than 16 (infra). Here is the better known Genesis 1 order again.
heavens earth waters light day night sky land vegetation sun moon stars fish birds land animals man
[Hermit] Leaving us with the conclusion that no matter what the odds were, these Theists got it irrevocably wrong. And they took two shots at it, changing the order around between them. In both of them, there are serious chronological and physical difficulties.
[Keith Black] My belief is that essentially the brain has within it a precoded neural circuitry that contains the answer to the origin of the universe. When we quietly meditate, we are accessing information that is already there. We already have the answer. That is essentially what my talk will focus upon."
[Hermit] Keith Black may "believe" that he has such an "answer", but as we can see, his "answer" is fundamentally wrong - and again we see the dangers of people speaking out of their areas of authority while blinded by belief.
[Hermit] It doesn't say much for Discover Magazine if they really mean to publish an article proposing this embarrassing sequence of unsupportable assertions. Veridicus, I hope you were being sarcastic when you referred to this as "Strikingly rational". It is better characterised as "Utter gobbledygook".
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
Re: virus: creation, big bang...whats the difference?
« Reply #3 on: 2003-03-27 15:12:01 »
Very nice work, old boy.
Cheers.
Walter
Hermit wrote:
> [Hermit] Always read material before accepting assertions about it. I'll ignore the time problem even if I shouldn't. The reason these were meant to be literal days is clear. They have "mornings and evenings." I'll even be generous and ignore all of the problems of creators (where did it come from) and creation (what mechanism was used). > > Source: New International Version (NIV) > > Genesis 1 > > 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. > > The BB occurred some 14 billion years ago. > > The Sun formed about 4.6 billion years ago. > > The Earth coalesced from dust and gasses spiraling around the sun a little over 4 billion years ago. > > 2 Now the earth was [Or possibly became] formless and empty, > > The Earth was not "formless." As soon as the tumultuous mass of material it formed from drew together, it formed an oblate spheroid or would have been thrown apart by centripetal forces.[/color] > > darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. > > Notice that we still don't have a sun. > > 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. > > Either this does not recognize that the sun is the source of light, or this places the formation of the sun after the formation of the Earth. Wrong. > > 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. > > Not realizing that the Earth is round, and sunlight reaches us in almost parallel rays, the relationship between day and night is clearly not comprehended. In addition, day is not seen as intrinsic to "light" which has already been established. > > 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day. > > Of course, the "sky" existed before the Earth as the Earth actually formed first, and then captured gases with its gravity. But here we have the sky being "created" "between the waters." Can you explain how gas separates water? No, I can't either. Not very convincing stuff is it? > > 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. > > This appears to be related to the Babylonian mythos of the World from Water. Unfortunately for the supposed chronicle, land undoubtedly formed long before any liquid water could have occurred. And naturally, as water condensed, gravity urged it into many locations. Not one. > > 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. > > Ok so we have a mythical single body of water being named along with the land. This is supposedly a big deal. > > 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day. > > I won't go down the path of analyzing this assertion and what it leaves out at this time, other than to mention that the non-seed bearing plants undoubtedly came first. > > 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day. > > Oops, and now the other stars are "created"? Those much older than our own sun too. Somehow he also needed to recreate the Sun, despite having done so twice before (did it go out)? And the moon, which in reality, as opposed to myth, came long before plants - or the Earth, as lunar rock has been dated to 4.52 billion and 4.5 billion. Another chronology glitch. And of course, it is difficult to comprehend how chlorophyll containing plants lived without the sun > > 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day. > > Bizarre. Land animals came after water animals, but birds descended from land animals. Fortunately the fish have not filled the seas, nor the birds the Earth. Notice that none of these life forms - or indeed plants - occurred independently. Even today, humans share in excess of 25% of their DNA with cabbages. For Christians, and those repeating Christian apologetics on the CoV list, the percentage may be higher. > > 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [Hebrew; Syriac all the wild animals] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." > > While the creationists take "each according to its kind" to deny evolution has ever happened, scientists know that there has been a dance of life, as species developed, died out, changed and were replaced. This has happened to man too, over the course of the last few million years. During most of the period for which man-like creatures have existed, we were largely indistinguishable from apes. So if we take this image as a picture of the gods, then they apparently look a lot like orangutans. Finally, I don't notice man exercising much "dominion" over the other animals. Indeed, a major problem today are bacilli which have, due to stupidity, become resistant to the drugs which science developed to control them at a time when the church still denied their existence. > > 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day. > > Genesis 2 > > 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. > > 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [Or ceased] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. > > Yeah. The bushed out immortal, omnipotent god. > > Now this was the first creation story. As you can see there are a lot of troubles with it. But this is not the end. There is a second creation story. > > 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens > > Same time gap trouble as before > > - 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [Or land] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [Or mist] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground ( adamah ); it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20).] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. > > Now here we have men fashioned out of mudpies (also in our genetic code?) and which are created before plants, animals or even rain. Which would have made creating mudpies difficult only the water no doubt came from the springs which allegedly existed before the rain. That anyone can imagine that this is meaningful or does not conflict with the scientific chronology, I have a word for you. Nonsense > > 8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. > > So now trees come after man. And the apologists try to claim this makes sense? > > <snip> > > 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. > > More mudpies! And what happened to the fish this time around? And the sun, moon, stars etc? Not needed for life. > > But for Adam [Or the man] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [Or took part of the man's side] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [Or part] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. > 23 The man said, > > "This is now bone of my bones > and flesh of my flesh; > she shall be called 'woman, [The Hebrew for woman sounds like the Hebrew for man] ' > for she was taken out of man." > > 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. > 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. > > Of course, today we understand genetics. And we would wonder about the last chromosome pair and wonder if Eve had a beard. But that probably didn't worry those old prophets. > > [Keith Black] "If you look at the Book of Genesis, which describes the creation of the universe, what strikes me is that the sequence is exactly the way we explain it scientifically. > > [Hermit] As we see above, either Keith Black does not read the bible, or Keith Black does not read scientifically acceptable works, or Keith Black tells lies. There is no other way of explaining the contradiction here. > > [Keith Black] First there was light, which corresponds with the energy of the Big Bang. > > [Hermit] Not at all. The BB would not be visible for a very long time after it occurred. The Universe was far too dense to admit light to pass through it. This assertion is rather like watching a dog peeing on the sofa, and saying that this was predicted by the sentence, "the cat sat on the mat." It only works so long as you "translate" it correctly, i.e. a cat is like a dog as both have four legs, a mat is like a sofa as both involve fabrics and weaving, and "sat" is another way of saying "peeing" if you don't want to offend somebody. This glosses the point that once you begin such translations (with no key in site), then anything is possible. "The cat sat on the mat" could equally mean, "The car parked in the garage" only the words are longer and would confuse the kind of people who offer such pale excuses of analogy in place of falsifiable knowledge and rational argument. > > [Keith Black] Then God separates the days and nights, which is what happened when the planets formed and started rotating around the sun. > > [Hermit] The planets formed from dusts and gases which were already in orbit and which preserved their rotational inertia. In addition, rotating around the sun has nothing to do day and night (day and night are caused by the Earths rotation around its own axis. > > [Keith Black] Then God separated the land from the sea, which was the next step in the scientific view, then came animals, then came man. > > [Hermit] Again he glosses over the major chronology problems, and secondly, I don't remember a "step" where "God separated the land from the sea" in any of my textbooks. Perhaps the fundamentalists have other books. > > [Keith Black] If you go through all of those steps, you have to ask yourself, What is the probability of someone getting that sequence exactly right 2,000 years ago? > > [Hermit] Well there are a varying number of steps involved, but no more than 16 (infra). Here is the better known Genesis 1 order again. > > heavens > earth > waters > light > day > night > sky > land > vegetation > sun > moon > stars > fish > birds > land animals > man > > [Hermit] Leaving us with the conclusion that no matter what the odds were, these Theists got it irrevocably wrong. And they took two shots at it, changing the order around between them. In both of them, there are serious chronological and physical difficulties. > > [Keith Black] My belief is that essentially the brain has within it a precoded neural circuitry that contains the answer to the origin of the universe. When we quietly meditate, we are accessing information that is already there. We already have the answer. That is essentially what my talk will focus upon." > > [Hermit] Keith Black may "believe" that he has such an "answer", but as we can see, his "answer" is fundamentally wrong - and again we see the dangers of people speaking out of their areas of authority while blinded by belief. > > [Hermit] It doesn't say much for Discover Magazine if they really mean to publish an article proposing this embarrassing sequence of unsupportable assertions. Veridicus, I hope you were being sarcastic when you referred to this as "Strikingly rational". It is better characterised as "Utter gobbledygook". > > ---- > This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28165> > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--
Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!"
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re:virus: creation, big bang...whats the difference?
« Reply #4 on: 2003-03-29 16:06:13 »
[hermit] <snip> 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day. <snip>
[athenonrex] it's also concievable that it was merely a "time sheet" for the scribe that was writing this. imagine a monk of the early temple writing the creation story, at the end of one day's work, he signs off noting that it is now evening, and he has finished the writing of the fifth morning (or day) of creation. or possibly some other variation of "clocking in, clocking out" to account for time spent...
the rest of what you said was pretty much dead on though...
_____________________________________________________________ --->Get your free email @godisdead.com Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
Re:virus: creation, big bang...whats the difference?
« Reply #5 on: 2003-03-29 17:36:14 »
[hermit 1] <snip>23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day. <snip>
[athenonrex 2] it's also concievable that it was merely a "time sheet" for the scribe that was writing this. imagine a monk of the early temple writing the creation story, at the end of one day's work, he signs off noting that it is now evening, and he has finished the writing of the fifth morning (or day) of creation. or possibly some other variation of "clocking in, clocking out" to account for time spent...
[Hermit 3] I think this would miss the import of Genesis 1:5 <<God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.>> Where the same style is used for what God did, not what the scribe did.
[athenonrex 2] the rest of what you said was pretty much dead on though...
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Author
Logged
