In the Beginning...

[onejayhawk]

Well, you see, that's the difference between the Iliad and Genesis.

Obviously, there is a difference. The Iliad is mostly fiction.

J

 

[Arakhor]

Obviously, there is a difference. The Iliad is mostly fiction.

As opposed to almost entirely fiction? (Or, at the very least, a lot of myths mixed in with unfalsifiable accounts that might once have happened.)

 

[Berzerker]

So these zircons have been preserved precisely because of their ability to survive through cycles of going into the deep crust of the earth and back up through extreme conditions over billions of years. By their very composition they were obviously not the first rocks.

They're evidence of Earth's oldest rock and they formed up to 4.4 bya in water. That rock was lost but the zircons survived only to become part of younger rock produced by plate tectonics.

The generally accepted science still says that most of our current water came from the late heavy bombardment half a billion years later, but there is no reason to say that there would have been no water before it, and for rocks to form earlier, which it obviously did only to go through the tectonic cycle and leave little to no remains. These zircons say nothing much about the overall composition of the entire surface at this time, other than that there was some water, which is not surprising at all since it's pretty much all over the solar system in some amounts, even if we probably needed a lot more to form the oceans we have today.

Where is the rock that didn't form in water? Plate tectonics began around the late heavy bombardment ~4 bya followed by life. Water > dry land > life.

What about the nuclear weapons (or other WMDs) you mentioned twice? Don't make preposterous claims and then not even try to back them up.

I did back it up, I cited the Bible and the fact a human being can be vaporized leaving their outline on rock or concrete. Lot's wife is evidence a weapon was used and many cultures claim the gods have powerful weapons.

 

[Arakhor]

I did back it up, I cited the Bible and the fact a human being can be vaporized leaving their outline on rock or concrete. Lot's wife is evidence a weapon was used and many cultures claim the gods have powerful weapons.

Of course. It's so obvious!!

 

[trader/warrior]

Where is the rock that didn't form in water? Plate tectonics began around the late heavy bombardment ~4 bya followed by life. Water > dry land > life.

So are you imagining an ocean directly on top of a giant sea of lava? That's my basic issue with the picture your painting of the formation of the earth. My understanding of physics is that there would have had to be something cool enough for water or ice to form on it, and that pretty much had to be rock. Or water all the way through I suppose.

As to where the rock that wasn't formed in water, my original argument meant to be hinting that we only have the zircons because only zircons has the properties to survive through all those forces, though my knowlege of geology and stuff is way too sparse to say anything in that regard really. So the non water formed rock is in the same place that the water formed rocks the zircons had to come from are, not there anymore, destroyed. Also the oldest known crustal rock known has been dated to up to 4.3 billion years old, so we could very possibly find something up to the age of the zircons, it's just very rare. I can't find anything on whether these crustal rocks were formed in water or not, just that they were volcanic deposits and contain the hilariously named "Cummingtonite".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuvvuagittuq_Greenstone_Belt
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925144624.htm

"There have been older dates from Western Australia for isolated resistant mineral grains called zircons," says Carlson, "but these are the oldest whole rocks found so far." The oldest zircon dates are 4.36 billion years. Before this study, the oldest dated rocks were from a body of rock known as the Acasta Gneiss in the Northwest Territories, which are 4.03 billion years old. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and remnants of its early crust are extremely rare—most of it has been mashed and recycled into Earth's interior several times over by plate tectonics since the Earth formed.

 

[onejayhawk]

As opposed to almost entirely fiction? (Or, at the very least, a lot of myths mixed in with unfalsifiable accounts that might once have happened.)

As opposed to non-fiction.

Do not confuse transmission error with invention. There may be a better word than non-fiction since much of the narrative seems to be from some form of revelation rather than direct observation.

To use allegory, one could compare an impressionist painting with a cartoon. One is done from life while the other is from imagination. Yet, the latter is easier to grasp.

Of course. It's so obvious!!

That he cited references? Of course, it is.

You can dislike his support, but he did give it.

J

 

[Lexicus]

As to where the rock that wasn't formed in water, my original argument meant to be hinting that we only have the zircons because only zircons has the properties to survive through all those forces, though my knowlege of geology and stuff is way too sparse to say anything in that regard really. So the non water formed rock is in the same place that the water formed rocks the zircons had to come from are, not there anymore, destroyed. Also the oldest known crustal rock known has been dated to up to 4.3 billion years old, so we could very possibly find something up to the age of the zircons, it's just very rare. I can't find anything on whether these crustal rocks were formed in water or not, just that they were volcanic deposits and contain the hilariously named "Cummingtonite".

All the zircons prove is that water was involved in the chemistry of the planet. It doesn't prove that the rocks "formed in water", nor does it prove that there was even standing water at the planet's surface let alone an ocean. In turn, even if it could be established that there was an ocean at that time, it would not make the creation myths anything other than myths.

Berzerker's point is based on misreading of the science and the holy texts...which is somewhat rare, usually you see points like this based on a misreading of one or the other...

 

[Arakhor]

That he cited references? Of course, it is.

You can dislike his support, but he did give it.

He just repeated his assertions without any actual references (not even a chapter/verse citation from the Bible) other than "some researchers...", so, no, he gave no actual support. Mechanical gave a text dump from an Ancient Aliens site about the Pyramids, even if he didn't provide the actual source, but Berzerker failed to provide any backing for his claim that the Sodom/Gomorrah event was caused by WMDs. What's more, given my recollection that the event was caused by God for the unstated sins of the populace, claiming that the Bible backs him up is somewhat farcical.

 

[onejayhawk]

He just repeated his assertions without any actual references (not even a chapter/verse citation from the Bible) other than "some researchers...", so, no, he gave no actual support. Mechanical gave a text dump from an Ancient Aliens site about the Pyramids, even if he didn't provide the actual source, but Berzerker failed to provide any backing for his claim that the Sodom/Gomorrah event was caused by WMDs. What's more, given my recollection that the event was caused by God for the unstated sins of the populace, claiming that the Bible backs him up is somewhat farcical.

As I stated, you can dislike his support but you cannot claim his position is unsupported.

J

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As opposed to non-fiction.

There is no reason to believe it as non-fiction any more than a story I can fabricate myself, aside from argument-from-majority.

 

[El_Machinae]

Or because when it was written, it was true and could be refuted.

This might have been true when it was written, but not when it was compiled generations later. By the time we get the stories about Moses and Abraham - never mind the flood - the compilers had already forgotten their own recent history.

How do they get the story of Lot 'right' (despite its total lack of witnesses) and the story of Joshua so completely wrong? Now, if there was some reason to think the story of Lot was more recent than their own toppling of Canaan, then maybe what you say would have credibility. But the compilers confidently slot it before Joshua; even in their own books it's pre-history.

 

[Arakhor]

As I stated, you can dislike his support but you cannot claim his position is unsupported.

By him, certainly. This is the Internet and one thing it does well is site after site, whether reputable or dodgy. He didn't even cite the Bible, which is fairly basic for a Biblical story, I'd say. Hell, you provided more evidence for his claim of WMDs than he did, so whilst the claim "his position is not unsupported" is technically true, it's utterly meaningless.

 

[onejayhawk]

By him, certainly. This is the Internet and one thing it does well is site after site, whether reputable or dodgy. He didn't even cite the Bible, which is fairly basic for a Biblical story, I'd say. Hell, you provided more evidence for his claim of WMDs than he did, so whilst the claim "his position is not unsupported" is technically true, it's utterly meaningless.

You keep throwing around absolutes like "utterly meaningless". It is not meaningless. The meaning needs to be weighed but there is weight to be found. Such statements detract from any validity your argument might have. Technically speaking.

J

 

[Arakhor]

The meaning needs to be weighed but there is weight to be found.

How do you manage to say so little with so many words? Are you in training to become a Jedi?

 

[onejayhawk]

How do you manage to say so little with so many words? Are you in training to become a Jedi?

Interesting take. I am usually accused of being laconic.

The point remains uncontested.

J

 

[Arakhor]

What can I say but that you're a man of multiple infuriating talents. I should also know better than to chase moving goalposts like a drunken footballer following a train.

 

[onejayhawk]

From you, that's flattering.

And the point remains uncontested.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

Interesting take. I am usually accused of being laconic.

Not mutually exclusive to his comment

 

[timtofly]

That would not really be my argument. I would just expect people to read and conclude that such things could not possibly have happened in the way they are described. (Unless you believe in miracles and then there's not really anything to discuss.)

We cannot give a scientific explanation, because it has to be a myth based on someone's supernatural explanation. Since it does not involve inventing the light bulb which human's can do, you claim that it cannot happen. I am trying to tell you that back then everything that could not be explained was blamed on the god's just like you are accusing me of doing. Now that we have a better understanding, you claim that no being is capable of manipulating the universe, because we still cannot "think outside the box". If you still want to claim that things happen by themselves that is fine. Why convince others that no being is capable of interacting with physical laws?

Well, I don't believe that because no short time span was involved. In geology, there's no such thing as a short time span, only a relatively short time span - relative to geology.

We have seen new volcanos form and die within a few decades. We have seen dormant volcanoes come back to life. We have even seen devastating tsunamis. Just because we assume that it takes millions of years, does not rule out that it can happen very quickly. We have just never observed it. We have not lived for billions of years to observe that. It is just assumed either way.

Some fuzzy logic there. The people who worshiped many gods weren't the skeptics. The people trying to point out the absurdity in having gods, again, weren't believers, they were (Greek) philosophers. The demyhtologization of ancient stories has nothing to do with ID; again, those are totally different phenomena. I can perfectly well believe in God without taking everything in the Bible as literally true. And I share this belief with the Roman-Catholic church, not the smallest of Christian denominations. I can even believe that the universe was created by God without resorting to literal beliefs. The pretense that the one has anything to do wit the other I would classify as either (misguided) fundamentalist or anti-intellectual belief. I personally belief in using my intellect rather than ignoring this Godgiven ability. I cannot fathom why intellectual capabilities, supposedly derived from God, should be ignored when it comes to religious texts. I can't fathom how such ignorance can help understand any text, religious or otherwise.

I cannot understand why there is such a fierce defense of logic, and reasoning over the topic. Have you read the Bible, and comprehend their thoughts on the matter? Even way back whenever you want to accept the actual writings, they reasoned that an intelligent creator designed a fetus in the womb. If that concept is just written off as mythology, then we who claim to have a choice over getting rid of such design are what? smarter? You may not accept it as literal, but the concept has to have some thought and reasoning behind it, not fuzzy logic. It was those who served the gods who mocked the Hebrews and claimed that the god's demanded babies to be sacrificed. We have the same arguments in this forum even today over the matter.

Lastly, it is not me who is claiming the Bible is a Holy Book. It's religion that does that. I only recognize the fact that it does.

So if one fact makes sense, we accept it. If another fact does not make sense, we rule it out as metaphorical?

This might have been true when it was written, but not when it was compiled generations later. By the time we get the stories about Moses and Abraham - never mind the flood - the compilers had already forgotten their own recent history.

How do they get the story of Lot 'right' (despite its total lack of witnesses) and the story of Joshua so completely wrong? Now, if there was some reason to think the story of Lot was more recent than their own toppling of Canaan, then maybe what you say would have credibility. But the compilers confidently slot it before Joshua; even in their own books it's pre-history.

How can the writings of any book stay the same for 2000 years relatively un-refuted, yet the writings of another cannot last for 700 years? For all indications it was the same author or so it is claimed.

For a base we will start out with Hammurabi and the dates for his rule over Babylon. They range from 1750 to 1686. That is a spread of 64 years, yet his rule was only 14 years. He was allegedly born in 1810 and died in 1750. That is supposed to be "set" in stone. If that which is supposed to be so historical, and such a wide range of dates be acceptable, why would the Biblical account which was one accepted record and dating system, be thought to have lost contact with their past?

Abraham may not be the famous one, who wrote laws, but their stories have some similarities even to the point that some rabbis thought that he was a contemporary of Hammurabi. They both fought off the 4 armies, to secure their land. They both held vast resources of cattle and grazing lands. They both stressed one "creator". Hammurabi was a prolific writer, and Abraham was said to be the first one to use the Hebrew alphabet which makes writing a lot easier than carving out figures in stone. Abraham broke off all ties with Babylonia, but they both could still be seen as Sephardic rulers, who lived at the same time. There was only a 400~ year time slot between that period and the beginning of the Hebrew nation led by Moses in 1300 BC. The Babylonian exile was only 700 years later in 600 BC.

Either we have a group of people who kept records and very specific ones, or else over a time span of 300 years, they came up with the most specific and elaborate history ever made by one people group which was finished by 300 BC. Not sure how they could forget, as seeing how they seemed to have specific memories or imaginations.

 

[El_Machinae]

Either we have a group of people who kept records and very specific ones, or else over a time span of 300 years, they came up with the most specific and elaborate history ever made by one people group which was finished by 300 BC. Not sure how they could forget, as seeing how they seemed to have specific memories or imaginations.

Then why is the story of Joshua smack dab in the middle? They had good enough written histories to remember about Abraham, but not the foundation of their own nation? How does that work?

The most parsimonious explanation is that they no longer knew the relative actual truths of their stories. They only knew how much they thought they were true. But that doesn't help us.

They have a specific and elaborate history, but enough of it is false that we cannot know which parts are correct without corroboration. We're supposed to credit a random story about Lot's wife in a book that puts Joshua shortly thereafter?