No I don’t think it is hogwash. I think that these were stories that were very useful to a certain group of people during a certain period of time. The stories provided morals, values, and ethics for a certain group at certain time in history.
Where I do think it is hogwash is to say that these ancient morals, values, and ethics are “good” for 2018 America. They are not. They are atrocious in today’s world with regard to modern secular morals, values and ethics.
Another big problem for the YEC hyper-evolution is that mankind never went through a hunter-gather stage. Humanity go from creation instantly to agriculture and metallurgy without the million of years of stone tool making. It is estimated that there are billions of stone flakes around the world. Who made them? And how fast did they make them?
I believe Cain represents the hunter phase.
It does not, because the Bible doesn’t actually say that either. What is implausible is theology which is not actually in the bible, not the text of the Bible itself. Too many “theologians” would rather work hard to defend the well-meaning errors of whatever brand they ride for than dig really hard into what the text itself is actually saying.
[quote=“gbrooks9, post:18, topic:157”]
It gets a little messier if the Global Flood is really just a regional flood.
[/quote] Just? If the area it covered is something over six times the size of the entire California Central Valley area? One that stretched beyond the horizon in all directions?
Patrick, you might enjoy reading Paul Copan’s “Is God a Moral Monster?” if you really want to understand how evangelicals, like me, engage with the texts you’ve decided are morally harmful. Too easy to keep pronouncing the shibboleths; I “dare” you to get to know your “enemies” better, and really try to understand.
I thought Cain was a herder of domesticated animals and that Abel was farmer. (or vice versa) In any case Cain killed Abel because the smoke of his burnt offering didn’t go in the same direction as the smoke from Abel’s burnt offering. Do I have the story correct? But the Bible has nothing about the worldwide million year hunter-gather phase that we know mankind went through. The Bible goes from Creation to Agrarian with domesticated animals right away as there are only a few generations between Adam and Noah and Abraham. Here is a paper on the domestication of rice.
Not really.
That is true of YEC, but it is missing the point the Bible. Stick to science, and leave Biblical interpretation to those who actually care about the Bible. You’ll avoid saying stupid things that way.
Well that’s completely different! From horizon to horizon in all directions?! Yikes…
According to geometrical calculations, assuming no positive or negative refraction, that would encompass a vast circle some 6 miles in diameter, or 3 miles in any given direction. How would foot-bound humans escape that “death trap”?
If they walked the length of two horizons in one direction, at say 2 mph, that would take at least 3 hours! And if they never made it out before the flood, and were on a boat, traveling at say, 4 mph, they could travel 3 horizon radii in the same time!
And since they are probably not in the America’s west, then we are talking about a plausible flood for Mesopotamia … and one of the most impressive ones recorded there did not even submerge all of Sumer, let alone all of future Assyria.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Math:
“For an observer standing on the ground with h = 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 4.7 kilometres (2.9 mi).”
Atheists study the Bible too. It is one of the primary ways atheists are created - by studying the Bible, and other holy books like the Koran.
This is where I remind @swamidass that you are consuming our digital air here … and causing more disruption than benefit from your input.
Swell to see you again.
Good to see you again.
Patrick my concern is that you show no interest in dialogue in the context of the take on scripture that our host and others around here (me included) hold to. For example, Swamidass has a view on early Genesis he calls “Genealogical Adam”. Have you heard of it? You really should in order to hang out here. Most of the arguments you are bringing up (and they do come off like arguments) are not applicable to the framework that is most common here. You are beating on a strawman. This is not the Southern Baptist Convention website.
Earlier you trotted out one of the tired atheist objections to an interpretation of the flood story which I don’t hold, and probably very few here, hold. I linked you to a video which carefully explained why that objection was based on a mis-interpretation of the text. You ignored it completely and just kept beating on SBC strawmen.
Try to learn where we are coming from first, then bring out your objections. If we show you how one of your objections is not applicable to where we are coming from, don’t blow it off and continue to raise the same kind of objections. If you let us help you understand more, then you can return the favor. Otherwise, you are just wasting bandwidth.
Yes, I do have an interest in dialogue. Yes, I am very familiar with Swamidass’ Genealogical Adam. It has a lot of non historical conjecture in it.
OK, so does atheism but I will bite. What do you mean by “non-historical conjecture”?
3 posts were merged into an existing topic: Genetics, Genealogies, and Racism
A post was merged into an existing topic: Genetics, Genealogies, and Racism
@Patrick are you talking to me with this response or dodging me? What about GA is “non-historical conjecture” and how do you know this?
When @Patrick says that “Genealogical Adam” invokes non-historical conjecture, he means the whole idea that God “specially created” (aka de novo) Adam and Eve. He feels that this is speculation, and that placing such an event anywhere in the human timeline is also speculation… because he doesn’t believe Genesis is a reliable historical record.
Speaking for myself, I do not call Genesis “historical information” either.
@gbrooks9 let’s let @Patrick speak for Patrick shall we? It will be good for him to defend an on-topic accusation instead of flitting around from one provocative statement to another.
I think you will be quite exasperated enough with the questions I do not “translate” for you. Believe me, I have no intention of making a regular habit of this.
The reason I stepped up with the answer is because his sentence was perfectly clear to me … but you seemed to be having a problem with the phrase “non-historical conjecture”. So when you had to ask twice for an explanation, you broke my will to resist assisting you.