If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientific American)   Is the answer A) You're a moron, B) You're a moron, or C) You're a moran?   (blogs.scientificamerican.com) divider line 288
    More: Stupid, literal interpretations, evolution, pseudosciences, necessarily true, Darwinian, draw backs, history of science, frame of references  
•       •       •

9011 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Nov 2012 at 8:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-21 10:11:23 AM

wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.


Anyone who's eliminated the impossible and is only left with one other option is severely lacking in imagination.
 
2012-11-21 10:12:59 AM

Bhruic: wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Anyone who's eliminated the impossible and is only left with one other option is severely lacking in imagination.


I agree. But it's still an option.
 
2012-11-21 10:14:04 AM

wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.


And just what are you arguing for here?

We have theories on how the universe could be self creating (it has to do with QCD theory)

Is it simpler to believe the universe was created using self-consistent methods and laws with how we experience the rest of reality or that an infinitely powerful being we have no evidence for existing did it?
 
2012-11-21 10:16:57 AM

DAD 20165: I'm not saying it's not fact but it seems to me if people were confident in evolution it would be the laws of evolution not still a theory.
Science and religion are not opposed science is just too young to understand. I heard this quote somewhere and I believe it will eventually be a truism


This is a fairly effective troll. I award you 8/10.

With the caveat that you're a pointless childish attention whore.
 
2012-11-21 10:17:44 AM
1) Audibly sigh.

2) Type in http://www.biologos.com/ into your most-liked web browser

3) Set student in front of PC

/Rise, repeat, etc.
 
2012-11-21 10:18:40 AM

Bhruic: wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Anyone who's eliminated the impossible and is only left with one other option is severely lacking in imagination.


Operative word emboldened.

Imagination=Fantasy

Picture falls off a wall, must be ghosts.
 
2012-11-21 10:19:58 AM

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?


First, we are still apes. Second, other modern day apes are just as evolved as we are from our common ancestor. Just because we are more intelligent doesn't mean that we are more evolutionarily advanced than our contemporary species.
 
2012-11-21 10:21:01 AM

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?




"It is inaccurate to say that humans were once other similar apes such as gorillas or chimpanzees. Instead, evolution states that our species and other species of great apes share a common ancestor.

That means at some point a long time ago, our three species were one species and over time, we diverged into what we are today. It is exceedingly unlikely for any of the current species of great apes to retrace millions of years of evolution back to that common ancestor and begin to evolve on the exact same path as humans. Instead, they will continue on their own evolutionary path that is parallel to others and will not converge."
 
2012-11-21 10:23:54 AM

ltdanman44: "It is inaccurate to say that humans were once other similar apes such as gorillas or chimpanzees. Instead, evolution states that our species and other species of great apes share a common ancestor.

That means at some point a long time ago, our three species were one species and over time, we diverged into what we are today. It is exceedingly unlikely for any of the current species of great apes to retrace millions of years of evolution back to that common ancestor and begin to evolve on the exact same path as humans. Instead, they will continue on their own evolutionary path that is parallel to others and will not converge."


Exactly, we share a common ancestor with birds too but no one ever asks why aren't birds evolving into humans.

/We share a common ancestor with everything if you go back far enough since we are all left-handed
//I think, it's been awhile since my HS bio class
 
2012-11-21 10:25:47 AM
Wall of text ahead, but I just want to highlight this response he got from one of his students:

"I personally do not believe in the theory of evolution. Nevertheless I am open to changing that belief if presented convincing evidence."

We all like to think that about ourselves, but the reality is that's not true. For most of us most of the time, at least.

For starters, as long as you are setting the standard for "convincing", you never have to change your beliefs at all. We move the goalposts all the time. On top of that, we rationalize away evidence of things we don't like. Like a wife who comes up with very fanciful explanations for a husband's odd behavior when anyone outside of that relationship can clearly see that he's cheating on her. Or like a person who is so damned sure that he is a good driver, in spite of a half dozen wrecks on his record where each one was determined to be his fault. We are very emotionally attached to our beliefs, whether they are political, religious, scientific, social, personal, or whatever. Each of them makes us who we are, and on the whole most of us like who we are (or at least, are comfortable enough with who we are that we don't enjoy the prospect of going through a radical change). And ultimately, we don't like to admit we were ever wrong about something so serious. A lot of us hold out on relationships well past the point when they should have ended, bad drivers don't want to admit that they suck at someone most people do well at every day, and most people are not going to be convinced that the beliefs their parents instilled in them from a young age about the nature of reality (e.g. a religious belief) are simply wrong (or, at best, purely speculative).

And I don't want to pretend that scientists are immune to this. A good number of scientists hold on to their own theories well past the point that they should have been abandoned, but because they are typically more intelligent they are also much better at rationalizing away the evidence that should have convinced them that they were wrong. It has been said that science advances funeral by funeral, as cliques of researchers who stubbornly hold to erroneous theories dies off and are replaced by younger generations that were less likely to be exposed to those falsified theories. But on the whole, they tend to be that way about scientific beliefs that are very esoteric - as in you'd really only care one way or the other if you were a student or researcher currently in that field - and not about something as basic as whether evolution is real, or the age of the earth, or whether global warming is happening.

So when someone says they just need to be presented with something "convincing" I always ask them to come up with an example of something they would consider convincing. For the most part, most of them either can not or will not. Which suggests (though not always very strongly) to me that they aren't serious about examining their beliefs and are more concerned about protecting their ego. At least with regards to the evolution question, the few people who are able to come up with some example of "convincing" evidence almost always come up with some example that would ironically disprove current evolutionary theory - e.g. a bird giving birth to a monkey or something equally silly. In that regard, creationists have always looked to me like the conspiracy theorists who think the moon landing was faked or that 9/11/01 was an inside job because it's the same process (side note: sadly, nowadays I feel I must specify which 9/11 since the GOP seems to be trying to hard to make the Benghazi thing on 9/11/12 a scandal of some nature), just different content. Incidentally, a study was published recently this year that made the connection between other types of science deniers - global warming deniers - and conspiracy theorists (Lewandowsky et al. (2012). NASA faked the moon landing-Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. Published in Psychological Science), and I'm finishing up another study looking at the same thing, just across a wider array of pseudoscience, science denial, paranormal ideation, and conspiracy theory adherence, which has found many of the same things. Whatever they come up with that would be convincing is oddly enough something that would make the official explanation of what happened wrong. And honestly, most can't; there's some interesting research on conspiracy theorists who hold mutually exclusive conspiracy theories to be true at the same time - (Wood, Douglas, & Sutton (2012). Dead and Alive: Belief in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories. Published in Social Psychology and Personality Science)

But, with that said, I usually respond to those claims - "give me convincing evidence and I'll change my mind" - with the question I mentioned above. Asking someone "what evidence would I need to show you for you to admit you were wrong" is a very good way to learn just how serious someone is about critically examining their deeply held beliefs.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter.
 
2012-11-21 10:26:01 AM

ghall3: wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

And just what are you arguing for here?

We have theories on how the universe could be self creating (it has to do with QCD theory)

Is it simpler to believe the universe was created using self-consistent methods and laws with how we experience the rest of reality or that an infinitely powerful being we have no evidence for existing did it?


Yes, it is simpler. It doesn't mean it's correct
And I don't believe you'll ever reach the point where "it's God" is the only answer left to us. I'm simply saying it's still a possible answer.
 
2012-11-21 10:26:49 AM

PreMortem: Bhruic: wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Anyone who's eliminated the impossible and is only left with one other option is severely lacking in imagination.

Operative word emboldened.

Imagination=Fantasy

Picture falls off a wall, must be ghosts.


I don't think the word "everything" changes anything. I mean, first off, very, very few things are actually impossible. That makes the realm of the possible so overwhelming large that eliminating the impossible does absolutely nothing to narrow down reality. Unless, as I said, you have an extremely poor imagination.

And everyone knows it's the aliens that make the pictures fall off the walls.
 
2012-11-21 10:27:17 AM
Are we not men?

Are we not men?

No! We are Devo!
 
2012-11-21 10:28:09 AM

eschatus: Are we not men?

Are we not men?

No! We are Devo!


Oh look. My name is relevant (my email address even more so)
 
2012-11-21 10:31:55 AM
One fossil of a modern dog,cat,rabbit etc. That's all they need to find to disprove evolution. Were waiting......
 
2012-11-21 10:33:38 AM
As far as what to say, I had a nice discussion back when I taught a summer chemistry course at a local CC in Lynchburg VA. A bunch of my students were from the Falwell-based community, but when discussing thermodynamics I went through the "evolution is impossible because of entropy" argument in some detail and showed exactly why it's not only wrong, but that it's obvious why it is and that anyone using the argument is ignorant. I even pointed to the page where some of the anti-evolution folks tell folks *not* to use that argument because it's so easily refuted, then asked them to think carefully the next time they heard it.

Had a nice discussion with one of them after class about it. He was a typical unsophisticated ID type and so I got to go into how Intelligent Design is a god of the gaps argument and why this is a *terrible* place for theists to work from- after all, every time you manage to figure out something that you were told God did you diminish God a little bit. There's a good reason we don't worship the god of thunder anymore.
 
2012-11-21 10:34:42 AM

wippit: eschatus: Are we not men?

Are we not men?

No! We are Devo!

Oh look. My name is relevant (my email address even more so)


Good.
 
2012-11-21 10:38:35 AM

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?


Why aren't dogs still evolving into german shepherds?

Why aren't ducks still evolving into mallards?

Why aren't snakes still evolving into king cobras?

Your question makes about as much sense as the last three.
 
2012-11-21 10:39:34 AM

Glockenspiel Hero: As far as what to say, I had a nice discussion back when I taught a summer chemistry course at a local CC in Lynchburg VA. A bunch of my students were from the Falwell-based community, but when discussing thermodynamics I went through the "evolution is impossible because of entropy" argument in some detail and showed exactly why it's not only wrong, but that it's obvious why it is and that anyone using the argument is ignorant. I even pointed to the page where some of the anti-evolution folks tell folks *not* to use that argument because it's so easily refuted, then asked them to think carefully the next time they heard it.

Had a nice discussion with one of them after class about it. He was a typical unsophisticated ID type and so I got to go into how Intelligent Design is a god of the gaps argument and why this is a *terrible* place for theists to work from- after all, every time you manage to figure out something that you were told God did you diminish God a little bit. There's a good reason we don't worship the god of thunder anymore.


How dare you not worship Thor, God of Thunder. He will strike you down with his hammer like he does the frost giants.
 
2012-11-21 10:39:40 AM
I've just realized: No Bevets sighting in this thread.
 
2012-11-21 10:42:21 AM

Glockenspiel Hero: There's a good reason we don't worship the god of thunder anymore.


It's because he weareth mother's drapes.
 
2012-11-21 10:43:08 AM

IlGreven:
Why aren't dogs still evolving into german shepherds?.


Legitimate question: is there a genetic difference between a German shepherd and a toy poodle?
 
2012-11-21 10:43:44 AM
Simple.

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Ok, that's not that simple, because it's just going to make a person bristle and defend their beliefs with opinion and bad logic.
 
2012-11-21 10:45:31 AM
I'd simply inform them that this is a science class and they will be tested on science. They are expected to understand the material as it is presented in the class. If they cannot or will not do this then they will receive a failing grade.
 
2012-11-21 10:46:37 AM

wippit: IlGreven:
Why aren't dogs still evolving into german shepherds?.

Legitimate question: is there a genetic difference between a German shepherd and a toy poodle?


And has Raul ever tried teaching German shepherds how to fly?
 
2012-11-21 10:49:14 AM

kid_icarus: Evolution and faith can be compatible, as long as faith is willing to abandon literal interpretations of scripture.

Therein lies the main problem, IMHO. Evolution is only incompatible with religion when you insist on interpreting the bible literally. (Which hardly any Christian sect actually does, btw...I don't care what they tell you.) This is only a wedge issue for political reasons. Christians are easier to herd and manage when they feel threatened and embattled over some moral panic crisis.


RussianPooper:
It's not all that hard to understand, hardly mind-boggling. The 6000 year thing is kind of a fringe, but still, you don't get to choose who raises you and where you grow up, so you are at the mercy of the information that is provided to you. And let's not act as if there aren't societal pressures in regards to belief as well that can keep people from bothering to question, at least for a while, and an evolutionary tendency to trust your family and the people in your group. There are people who believe the earth is old and that evolution exists within small parameters, but still believe god created everything and that species don't evolve into different species. They're unfortunately close to the majority, in fact, so I'm guessing not all your 349 classmates all believed as you expect.


I know it feels good to believe that people are educated and intelligent, but the most recent poll I can find shows that 46% of those within the United States are young earth creationists. We'd all like to believe that people are intelligent, think through their positions, and are in general agreement with knowledge acquired over the years. However, as George Carlin said, "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." So, no, YEC is not a fringe belief (at least in the US), it's a mainstream Christian belief that should not have existed since the foundation of modern geology, but seems to have been fairly steady since 1942.
 
2012-11-21 10:50:52 AM

eschatus: Are we not men?

Are we not men?

No! We are Devo!


I'm 40% potato
 
2012-11-21 10:53:34 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: eschatus: Are we not men?

Are we not men?

No! We are Devo!

I'm 40% potato


Oh, like a Pringle?
 
2012-11-21 10:56:26 AM
FTFA: I feel a bit queasy, I admit, challenging their faith, from which some of them derive great comfort. Part of me agrees with one student who wrote: "Each individual is entitled to his or her own religious beliefs... Authority figures teaching America's youth should not be permitted to say certain things such as any religion being simply 'wrong' due to a certain scientific explanation."

This is the part that boggles my mind.

Here is a man who has studied and worked and striven his entire professional life to assimilate and understand a vast field of knowledge, and he has been certified as a bona fide expert in the discipline. It is his job to teach youngsters a little of what he knows.

Now, name me one other field of endeavor where someone so accomplished, experienced, respected and certified has to tread lightly and mince his words around some pimply-faced goddamn first-year kids who don't know jack shiat.

Can you imagine a Master Mechanic being compelled to watch his words around some teenage imbecile who thinks steam-power is cutting-edge automotive technology?
 
2012-11-21 10:56:29 AM

DjangoStonereaver: I've just realized: No Bevets sighting in this thread.


You fool! Speak not his name, lest you draw him and his walls of copypasta into the thread.
 
2012-11-21 11:01:42 AM

SpectroBoy: "Well Jimmy, this is a science class and I am going to teach science. Your grade will be based on your understanding of that science so I suggest you pay attention. Whether you believe it or not, this material will be on the test. "


Egoy3k: I'd simply inform them that this is a science class and they will be tested on science. They are expected to understand the material as it is presented in the class. If they cannot or will not do this then they will receive a failing grade.


Except that it's not a science class. It's a pair of humanities class (one general survey of the humanities and one on the history of science) where the students were asked to write an essay on "why is evolution controversial".
 
2012-11-21 11:08:22 AM

kevinatilusa: SpectroBoy: "Well Jimmy, this is a science class and I am going to teach science. Your grade will be based on your understanding of that science so I suggest you pay attention. Whether you believe it or not, this material will be on the test. "

Egoy3k: I'd simply inform them that this is a science class and they will be tested on science. They are expected to understand the material as it is presented in the class. If they cannot or will not do this then they will receive a failing grade.

Except that it's not a science class. It's a pair of humanities class (one general survey of the humanities and one on the history of science) where the students were asked to write an essay on "why is evolution controversial".


OK I went and RTFA now and I'll say this:

He shouldn't say a damn thing. He should grade their papers based on their ability to discuss the question of why it's controversial. Actually the fact that he could tell how each student felt about evolution personally when grading a paper based on the question of why it's controversial seems like a bigger problem. Clearly none of his students know how to write.
 
2012-11-21 11:11:14 AM
Biblically speaking, if you do read how the Earth was created, there is room for evolution to have happened. I know I have commented on this in last weeks Evolution Vs Creation thread. But if you look at how God created Eve. It is possible that God did that for every species on Earth.

We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

I personally believe we were created in His image pre-fall into sin. And after that, though no physical changes happened on the macro scale of evolution, micro evolution did happen. We got taller, stronger and can withstand more harsh environments.
 
2012-11-21 11:15:21 AM
The problem is that the author of that article is approaching evolution as an enemy of religion.. and it isn't. Religion may hate evolution, but science shouldn't reciprocate... when it does, all it does is embolden the religous fanatics.

Science should not engage the religious community at all.
 
2012-11-21 11:15:40 AM

ltdanman44:

1.bp.blogspot.com

 

Wait! You are trying to tell that Darwin Mayflower was Neutral Evil?

I don't know what to think.
 
2012-11-21 11:17:21 AM

Ennuipoet:

I still say the only way to truly demonstrate evolution to a Fundie is infect them with a drug resistant strain of gonorrhea and ask if them if they want to change their answer.


yes but isn't that an adaptation rather than evidence of evolution

/ducks
 
2012-11-21 11:19:32 AM

yves0010: Biblically speaking, if you do read how the Earth was created, there is room for evolution to have happened. I know I have commented on this in last weeks Evolution Vs Creation thread. But if you look at how God created Eve. It is possible that God did that for every species on Earth.

We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

I personally believe we were created in His image pre-fall into sin. And after that, though no physical changes happened on the macro scale of evolution, micro evolution did happen. We got taller, stronger and can withstand more harsh environments.


Now when he created the scale of Earth days/years to Heaven time, was he using the orbital and rotational velocities of Earth when it was first created, during times of immense turbulence when momentum was added to the moving body, or our current standard time lengths that were in effect when the group of religious and political hustlers made all that shiat up?
 
2012-11-21 11:22:18 AM

Zombalupagus: Hey, here's an idea: You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to explain the evidence for it and how it works.

Not learning about something because you don't agree with it is silly. I don't agree with Marxism, or the mindset that brought Hitler to power, or slavery. That doesn't mean I get to skip the class.


bears repeating


/bearsbearsbearsbearsbears
 
2012-11-21 11:22:40 AM
How should I respond to students who reject evolutionary theory on religious grounds? ~FTA

the same way you should respond to students who accept evolutionary theory on religious grounds

it may also help, not to teach students theories that have been scientifically proven wrong or desperately cling to them with your unscientific butt-hurt

avoid adding your unproven wish-beliefs into the giant umbrella of "evolution" and pretending that it is Science, and learn some terms while you're at it
 
2012-11-21 11:22:44 AM

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?


If you are still asking this question you're an idiot who chooses to be an idiot.
 
2012-11-21 11:25:34 AM

yves0010: We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

The Bible (Genesis) also has night coming before day (which is why in Judaism, the calendar day starts with sunset). Also, the sun/moon were not created until Day 4, making the marking/passage of time...difficult to mark for the first 3 days - were they 3 24-hour periods of darkness? Why bother marking time that early at all?

Literalism is fraught with questions like these - the stories all have holes, unless you see them as allegory. That's part of the purpose of those extra-textual stories I mentioned above - they impart some deeper understanding or explanation(s) for obvious questions.

(The line, from Isaiah IIRC, is that "in heaven, a day is as 1,000 years". Which is the source for Maimonedes' opinion that the Earth can only exist for a maximum of 6,001 or 7,000 years [6 full millenia or into the 6th millenium], one for each "day" of creation. TMYK.)

 
2012-11-21 11:27:56 AM

H31N0US: bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

Because they evolved into apes. We evolved into humans. They chose...poorly.


why aren't amoebas evolving into fish?

why aren't fish evolving into lizards?

why aren't lizards evolving into birds?

why aren't primordial soups evolving into amoebas?

if Nature can accomplish all of this stuff by itself accidentally, surely someone can Intelligently reproduce similar results? how hard could it be?
 
2012-11-21 11:30:38 AM
Ask them where in the Bible it proves evolution wrong. Correct answer: nowhere.
 
2012-11-21 11:30:40 AM
I don't understand why people think there is a conflict between Science and Faith. Nonetheless, I've seen how discussion about evolution in the classroom (this is in my College lab) make people become stupider overtime. I'm not sure why. Anyone who doesn't accept evolution is ignoring the evidence. Anyone who claims faith and science are not compatible are fools.
 
2012-11-21 11:32:35 AM

wippit: Some creationists believe evolution as well.


don't bother with that one, some are beyond help
 
2012-11-21 11:32:49 AM
I think I'd just say "That is not the conclusion supported by prevalent scientific findings and you are free to draw your own conclusions. There will however be a test on this material and if you want to pass, I can only offer the phrase 'Know thine enemy'."
 
2012-11-21 11:39:32 AM

damndirtyape: I think I'd just say "That is not the conclusion supported by prevalent scientific findings and you are free to draw your own conclusions. There will however be a test on this material and if you want to pass, I can only offer the phrase 'Know thine enemy'."


Ooh, I like that one.
 
2012-11-21 11:41:26 AM

Bhruic: PreMortem: Bhruic: wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Anyone who's eliminated the impossible and is only left with one other option is severely lacking in imagination.

Operative word emboldened.

Imagination=Fantasy

Picture falls off a wall, must be ghosts.

I don't think the word "everything" changes anything. I mean, first off, very, very few things are actually impossible. That makes the realm of the possible so overwhelming large that eliminating the impossible does absolutely nothing to narrow down reality. Unless, as I said, you have an extremely poor imagination.

And everyone knows it's the aliens that make the pictures fall off the walls.


Actually there is an equal number of possible and impossible "things", but I doubt you can get your head around that.

Oh, I think I know what the problem is here, you think imagination is what I call using your brain and logic. I think having an imagination is going on a neverending story.

twimg0-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-11-21 11:43:35 AM

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?


Humans are apes, so your question is the same as "why aren't humans still evolving into humans?"
 
2012-11-21 11:44:24 AM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: yves0010: Biblically speaking, if you do read how the Earth was created, there is room for evolution to have happened. I know I have commented on this in last weeks Evolution Vs Creation thread. But if you look at how God created Eve. It is possible that God did that for every species on Earth.

We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

I personally believe we were created in His image pre-fall into sin. And after that, though no physical changes happened on the macro scale of evolution, micro evolution did happen. We got taller, stronger and can withstand more harsh environments.

Now when he created the scale of Earth days/years to Heaven time, was he using the orbital and rotational velocities of Earth when it was first created, during times of immense turbulence when momentum was added to the moving body, or our current standard time lengths that were in effect when the group of religious and political hustlers made all that shiat up?


Dr Dreidel: yves0010: We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

The Bible (Genesis) also has night coming before day (which is why in Judaism, the calendar day starts with sunset). Also, the sun/moon were not created until Day 4, making the marking/passage of time...difficult to mark for the first 3 days - were they 3 24-hour periods of darkness? Why bother marking time that early at all?

Literalism is fraught with questions like these - the stories all have holes, unless you see them as allegory. That's part of the purpose of those extra-textual stories I mentioned above - they impart some deeper understanding or explanation(s) for obvious questions.

(The line, from Isaiah IIRC, is that "in heaven, a day is as 1,000 years". Which is the source for Maimonedes' opinion that the Earth can only exist for a maximum of 6,001 or 7,000 years [6 full millenia or into the 6th millenium], one for each "day" of creation. TMYK.)


That is exactly what I was trying to explain. We can not see what "time" means to God. We are human and can only understand what time is relative to us. A day to God could be 1000 years to us (Standard 365.25 days / year) or it could be something far greater then we can even imagine.
 
Displayed 50 of 288 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report