Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What did he discover?

It wasn't America.

But even a cursory reading of the creation account by someone with a scientific mind like yours should easily be able to make the logical inferences.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But even a cursory reading of the creation account by someone with a scientific mind like yours should easily be able to make the logical inferences.

A scientific mind like mine comes to the conclusion that the whole thing is a fairy tale and Adam never existed.

And it's a Babylonian fairy tale at that. The Hebrews did not come up with it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Mr. Actor sir, I'll answer your QM question if you answer mine first: Can a person be in and outside his house at the same time?

Yes.

Now answer my question.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Yes.

Now answer my question.

I thought you were merely establishing the veracity of the Uncertainty Principle. But are you claiming actual simultaneity? Where is physicist Bruce Reed mistaken?...

https://books.google.com/books?id=m3...friend&f=false

[Greyfox]

Merry Christmas Everyone whether you are a believer or not!

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Merry Christmas Everyone whether you are a believer or not!

The same to you, Greyfox. I hope the former aren't debating but rather experiencing the joy on Christmas. My excuse for participating even now is that I have been eliminated from my fantasy football league and my wife's family won't arrive for awhile.

Have a great new year.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Yes.

I'm feeling generous this Christmas season, so I am compelled to ask: Are you certain about this? Do you want to rethink your answer? Or is this an unequivocal "yes"?

Now answer my question.

First, get back to me with your final answer.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

A scientific mind like mine comes to the conclusion that the whole thing is a fairy tale and Adam never existed.

And it's a Babylonian fairy tale at that. The Hebrews did not come up with it.

Are you certain of that?

But thank you for proving just how blind to the relevant text in scripture you are. Not only are you blind but you cannot even bring yourself to assume, for the sake of discussion, that Adam was a real person and that what is said to and about him is true, which would then allow you to see that if the narrative is true, then Adam was the first scientist on the planet.
You cannot even hypothesize that the narrative is true. Yet, I bet you do think of yourself as a very open-minded, progressive individual, right?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

A scientific mind like mine comes to the conclusion that the whole thing is a fairy tale and Adam never existed.

And it's a Babylonian fairy tale at that. The Hebrews did not come up with it.

The individuals in my inner circle, and those I reference who receive Genesis positively, don't sit around hoping that no one compares the Enuma Elish to Gen 1.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Are you certain of that?

But thank you for proving just how blind to the relevant text in scripture you are. Not only are you blind but you cannot even bring yourself to assume, for the sake of discussion, that Adam was a real person and that what is said to and about him is true, which would then allow you to see that if the narrative is true, then Adam was the first scientist on the planet.
You cannot even hypothesize that the narrative is true. Yet, I bet you do think of yourself as a very open-minded, progressive individual, right?

Did the author of Gen 1 leave any mark on the text of his own? That is, secondary, but genuine authorship? Or was he only a stenographer to the primary Author?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm feeling generous this Christmas season, so I am compelled to ask: Are you certain about this? Do you want to rethink your answer? Or is this an unequivocal "yes"?



First, get back to me with your final answer.

Quit stalling. You have my answer to your question. Now give me your answer to mine.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Quit stalling. You have my answer to your question. Now give me your answer to mine.

Okay. No problema. The answer to your question is "no".

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... for the sake of discussion ...
You cannot even hypothesize that the narrative is true.

The problem is that you equate "hypothesize" with "admit".

I really don't give a damn whether scripture supports the idea that Adam was the first scientist. I've never heard that claim before. When you made it I was mildly curious but not so much that I care to play your game and get involved in a whole new discussion. If you don't want to share your train of thought then fine. I have better things to do.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Did the author of Gen 1 leave any mark on the text of his own? That is, secondary, but genuine authorship? Or was he only a stenographer to the primary Author?

The entire book of Genesis could be divided into 10 sections, each section introduced with the superscription formula "these are the generations of..." (cf. 2:4; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2. The fact that the entire Book of Genesis is in this genealogical framework unmistakenly indicates that the author intended for his readers to understand that he was presenting them with a genuine history of real people -- this one begat that one, at that one begat someone else, etc.

These histories (genealogies) were probably recorded on clay tablets (the preferred material of ancient civilizations upon which to transcribe cuneiform writings), were inspired by God to his various prophets who predated Moses (2 Pet 1:21) and these tablets were eventually handed down to Moses so that he could do the work of compiling those records.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The problem is that you equate "hypothesize" with "admit".

I really don't give a damn whether scripture supports the idea that Adam was the first scientist. I've never heard that claim before. When you made it I was mildly curious but not so much that I care to play your game and get involved in a whole new discussion. If you don't want to share your train of thought then fine. I have better things to do.

I used the term "hypothesize" because if you're really a scientist you must have engaged in the hypothesizing process a few times in your life. You should know (but apparently don't) that to make an hypothesis is to admit to nothing.

And I personally have made this claim on previous occasions on the old Religious thread and supported it with scripture.