Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[negZero]

I already did that in the first thread, but I never posted the actual text of the Babylonian creation story. And in that thread I posted a link to a picture of a cylinder seal from over 4,000 years ago showing our solar system corroborating that "poetry" - a star surrounded by 11 celestial gods. And I did back up that "poetry"- I identified the known counterparts to the gods in the story.

They would never be able to see all the planets in the solar system 4000 years ago, so they just guessed at how many objects orbit around it and its still wrong. Also our Sun has 9 objects (Pluto is planet damnit) around it not 11, even if we count the moon that 10, so where is this missing celestial body?

Now take your lame poetry and go away.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I already did that in the first thread, but I never posted the actual text of the Babylonian creation story. And in that thread I posted a link to a picture of a cylinder seal from over 4,000 years ago showing our solar system corroborating that "poetry" - a star surrounded by 11 celestial gods. And I did back up that "poetry"- I identified the known counterparts to the gods in the story.

go to the mods

Sorry but you've given us the Babylonian Creation myth and nothing else. We are looking for evidence, not myths.

For your theory to be accepted you will have to show us proof that the Babylonians were indeed talking about the planets when they mentioned their gods and that they knew what they were talking about, re the immense forces which would be needed for the creation for the solar system. This is a very tall order as you have noone to talk to about the epic who would understand it's meaning fully (well all the Babylonians are dead) and the only stuff I can see on the internet talking about the Enuma Elish is either weird conspiracy theories or creationists grasping at straws.

But even if you do prove it, you'll still have to start again at your beginnings, and do you know why? It's because the Babylonian Creation has nothing to say about Evolution! It does not prove or disprove it! It is simply a story about how the world came about!

 

[Arakhor]

Are you going to claim that that myth isn't a piece of poetry? You'd expect Babylonian literature to include astronomical references - they devised the 360-scheme (degrees, days etc.), the calendar and so on.

Uranus and Neptune certainly would not have been known to the Ancients. Check Dante's Inferno to find out their cosmological knowledge - a geocentric system, composed of concentric circles, starting with the Earth, then the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

 

[Berzerker]

They would never be able to see all the planets in the solar system 4000 years ago, so they just guessed at how many objects orbit around it and its still wrong. Also our Sun has 9 objects (Pluto is planet damnit) around it not 11, even if we count the moon that 10, so where is this missing celestial body?

Now take your lame poetry and go away.

Thats brilliant neg, you want people to defend biblical creationism but without showing how science supports the "poetic" origins of the creation story in Genesis (you'll need a mod to tell me thats kosher before I honor that ridiculous parameter). I dont know what they saw, but I can see their creation story described the planets in our solar system. Combine that with their actual depiction of a star surrounded by 11 globes and I cant so easily dismiss it. And according to the story Pluto (perhaps) was a minor god "sent" by Anshar/Saturn as a messenger to the other gods - how in the hell do you call this poetry when you haven't read it? Based on current mathematical relationships between the two, I'd say Saturn is a possible "parent" of Pluto.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

How many tales don't end up with the same number of planets that we have?


If we were to consider this preposterous nonsense as "evidence" you'd have to show that all of their myths regarding those characters always included only those characters and no others.

Otherwise you're cherry picking one that has the correct number and giving it meaning it never had, which is what you're doing.

YAWN.

 

[negZero]

Thats brilliant neg, you want people to defend biblical creationism but without showing how science supports the "poetic" origins of the creation story in Genesis (you'll need a mod to tell me thats kosher before I honor that ridiculous parameter).

You haven;t used any science just ancient poetry. Now if you can back that story up with some science I accept.

I dont know what they saw,

We know they didn't have the technology to see most of the planets in our solar system.

but I can see their creation story described the planets in our solar system.

They claim 2 too many, and if we count our moon why didn't they see all the other moons like Titian, Europa and so on?

Combine that with their actual depiction of a star surrounded by 11 globes and I cant so easily dismiss it.

We don't have 11 celestial bodies orbiting our sun

And according to the story Pluto (perhaps) was a minor god "sent" by Anshar/Saturn as a messenger to the other gods - how in the hell do you call this poetry when you haven't read it?

I have read it and don't care for it.

Based on current mathematical relationships between the two, I'd say Saturn is a possible "parent" of Pluto.

You suck at math.

Now take your stupid creation stories and GTFO.

Moderator Action: It is not your place to say who should or should not post in this thread. Your incivility is taking this thread off topic far more than his post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Oh man, and it's including the sun as a "planet" here.

Wow.

 

[Arakhor]

There's no need to be so hostile, Negzero.

Apsu = Sun
Mummu = Mercury
Lahamu = Venus
Lahmu - Mars
Tiamat (Tehom in Gen 1:2) = proto Earth
Kishar = Jupiter
Anshar = Saturn
Anu = Uranus
Nudimmud = Neptune

What reason do you have to assume this tidy match-up of planets with Babylonian deities? Why is your Mercury-Earth the mother of them all?

What proof do you have that the Babylonians had any way of detecting Uranus & Neptune whatsoever? The Greeks did all of their astronomy with the naked eye and never detected either.

 

[negZero]

Oh man, and it's including the sun as a "planet" here.

Wow.

Wait so the Sun is one of the 11 objects orbiting around the Sun

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Wait so the Sun is one of the 11 objects orbiting around the Sun

I think the only sane resoponse is

 

[Arakhor]

The other thing, of course, is why I call this poetry, for the very same reason I describe Psalms as poetry - it is poetry. Unless you've strayed into Domination's territory and are arbitrarily redefining the English language, you can hardly disagree with a comment on its literary style.

 

[Berzerker]

Sorry but you've given us the Babylonian Creation myth and nothing else. We are looking for evidence, not myths.

I just gave you a creation myth describing the planets in our solar system - does our solar system count as evidence? And I provided plenty of evidence in the last thread and you put me on ignore, so if you stopped reading my posts dont blame me for your self imposed ignorance.

For your theory to be accepted you will have to show us proof that the Babylonians were indeed talking about the planets when they mentioned their gods and that they knew what they were talking about, re the immense forces which would be needed for the creation for the solar system. This is a very tall order as you have noone to talk to about the epic who would understand it's meaning fully (well all the Babylonians are dead) and the only stuff I can see on the internet talking about the Enuma Elish is either weird conspiracy theories or creationists grasping at straws.

But even if you do prove it, you'll still have to start again at your beginnings, and do you know why? It's because the Babylonian Creation has nothing to say about Evolution! It does not prove or disprove it! It is simply a story about how the world came about!

I never mentioned evolution, and it is a story about how the world came about (among other things).

Are you going to claim that that myth isn't a piece of poetry? You'd expect Babylonian literature to include astronomical references - they devised the 360-scheme (degrees, days etc.), the calendar and so on.

Uranus and Neptune certainly would not have been known to the Ancients. Check Dante's Inferno to find out their cosmological knowledge - a geocentric system, composed of concentric circles, starting with the Earth, then the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

Poetic or not, thats irrelevant... That was your attempt to dismiss it as "evidence". And the Earth and Moon dont appear in those opening verses describing the creation of the planetary gods, they came later. The Sun, Mercury and Tiamat were followed by 3 pairs of gods - the 2 war gods born in their midst, the 2 gas giants Jupiter and Saturn, and finally the outer gas giants, Uranus and Neptune. This matches the cylinder seal I posted in the first thread. Thats evidence they did know about our solar system...

 

[Arakhor]

What reason do you have to assume this tidy match-up of planets with Babylonian deities? Why is Mercury-Earth the mother of them all?

What proof do you have that the Babylonians had any way of detecting Uranus & Neptune whatsoever? The Greeks did all of their astronomy with the naked eye and never detected either.

Not to quote myself here, Berzerker, but you completely ignored this post in your attempt to belittle my position.

 

[negZero]

I just gave you a creation myth describing the planets in our solar system - does our solar system count as evidence? And I provided plenty of evidence in the last thread and you put me on ignore, so if you stopped reading my posts dont blame me for your self imposed ignorance.

There are to many planets in your story, that right there debunks it. Also they couldn't see all those planets back then.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Spam deleted. Chill guys.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ajidica]

Berzerker, unless I'm badly misreading the Enuma Elish, nothing you posted in any way deals with evolution. The segment you posted deals with how the Earth came about. Which, as interesting as it may be, is not evolution.
The Theory of Evolution makes no pronouncements on how the universe came about.

 

[sanabas]

Not to be pedantic, but isn't the thread evidence for creationism? How the earth came about may not fit under the topic of evolution, but it undoubtedly fits under the topic of creationism.

That said, taking a creation myth and trying your best to make it line up with current knowledge, with hindsight, then proclaiming that as evidence that the writers of the creation myth actually had that current knowledge, is a long way from evidence. It's at about the same level as 'proof' that Nostradamus really was prescient and predicting the future, or 'proof' that the Bible code is accurate. Use a creation myth to explain stuff we don't know, then have that explanation confirmed later on, and I might start thinking you're on to something. (I still want to know what the creationists here think of the Bible code, btw)

What about all the other stories in a similar vein? Whether other Babylonian stories about the same gods, or other bible stories like those about Noah or Moses? Don't they have to be made to fit actual facts, too? Or is it sufficient that you can make one story fit, and call that evidence, while all the ones that don't fit, they're merely stories?

I reckon with a bit of effort, I could probably make some Chaucer look like a description of some quantum mechanics, of something like describing the superposition of two atoms. Should that be considered evidence that Chaucer actually knew about stuff first discovered centuries after his death?

I think I could certainly make some Australian Aboriginal creation myths read as allegories for the actual way things like kangaroos evolved. Is that evidence that long before Dawrwin boarded the Beagle, his theories were already known here?

The logic behind your supposed evidence is ridiculous. Even more so when a quick examination says that the supposed accurate description is anything but. Whether it's the earth as a water covered ball, birds appearing before flowering plants, the sun begetting all the planets, but having mercury-proto earth give birth to them all, that Uranus formed from Saturn, and Neptune from Uranus.

 

[ParkCungHee]

They would never be able to see all the planets in the solar system 4000 years ago, so they just guessed at how many objects orbit around it and its still wrong. Also our Sun has 9 objects (Pluto is planet damnit) around it not 11, even if we count the moon that 10, so where is this missing celestial body?

Eris.

Or Nibiru.

 

[classical_hero]

@sanabas. How the earth formed is vital for evolution since so far it is the only source of life in this universe. iF ther is no satisfactory naturalistic method for earth forming, then ther is no way life here could have evolved in the first place.

I do have a question for evolutionists. Where did all the info come from? If we evolved simple life forms then there surely must be millions of mutations that have added the info to our genome. We are talking about specified information that has to arise, since just simple copying mistakes will not work since they are random and do not give the specified order that we see in our genome. Or better yet, show proof of ho w the first life even formed out of dumb chemicals.

 

[sophie]

@sanabas. How the earth formed is vital for evolution since so far it is the only source of life in this universe. iF ther is no satisfactory naturalistic method for earth forming, then ther is no way life here could have evolved in the first place.

This is so irritatingly wrong it's not even funny.

I do have a question for evolutionists. Where did all the info come from? If we evolved simple life forms then there surely must be millions of mutations that have added the info to our genome. We are talking about specified information that has to arise, since just simple copying mistakes will not work since they are random and do not give the specified order that we see in our genome. Or better yet, show proof of ho w the first life even formed out of dumb chemicals.

This question was answered 5 pages ago.