Was this scientist fired for finding a "4000 year-old" dinosaur fossil?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
What beginning?

It is clear "the beginning" is referring to right before the big bang. God created the heavens and the earth far too close to each other. Upon said creation, the words "I dun goofed" were uttered as the mass all collided in a violent explosion, creating the expanding universe we now know.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
You post this while literally doing what I just said you did. If you hate my "diversions" so much why do YOU keep responding to them like this?

I gave my arguments for why I think that the context of Genesis 1 suggests that the author was more likely to intend literal days than figurative eras. I don't really have anything else to say on that matter. You responded by saying that Gen 2:4 contradicts this, which is kind of hard to deal with because the Gen 2:4 onward creation account contradicts the Gen 1 account in a lot of ways. That doesn't mean that Gen 1 doesn't say that creation happened in 6 days.

I also pointed out that Gen 1 refers to the creation of the earth and the heavens before the creation week even started, and Gen 2:4 referring to that same creation of earth and heavens. Maybe the two chapters have a different idea of what those terms mean?

Gen 2:1 closes the actual creation process, and from then on, leads right up to the fall of man, as that verse says everything was completed.

Everything else that follows isn't the actual creation process, but after creation was done. Genesis 2:1 makes that glaringly obvious, that creation was done at that point.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
Gen 2:1 closes the actual creation process, and from then on, leads right up to the fall of man, as that verse says everything was completed.

Everything else that follows isn't the actual creation process, but after creation was done. Genesis 2:1 makes that glaringly obvious, that creation was done at that point.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Those are not acts of creation???

All of these problems arise when you try to reconcile Gen 1-2:4 with Gen 2:4-25.. there are so many things that suggest two different creation myths written by two different authors (not just contradicting each other, but the narrative flow, the type of language, the focus of subject, even using a different name for God), that you think are coherent because they appear in the same book now and because religion/tradition says so.

I know you reject that wholesale and I'm sure you'll call me wrong/an idiot/whatever but I can't really talk about this and pretend I think it's supposed to be coherent.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
Those are not acts of creation???

All of these problems arise when you try to reconcile Gen 1-2:4 with Gen 2:4-25.. there are so many things that suggest two different creation myths written by two different authors (not just contradicting each other, but the narrative flow, the type of language, the focus of subject, even using a different name for God), that you think are coherent because they appear in the same book now and because religion/tradition says so.

I know you reject that wholesale and I'm sure you'll call me wrong/an idiot/whatever but I can't really talk about this and pretend I think it's supposed to be coherent.

The language, focus, and perhaps tone changed because the topic itself changed.

This is exactly why we know it's not an account of creation. There are many books written by the same author that change language and tone with the actual topic.

You've explained why with the changes, we can have the same author.

You sound like a documentary theorist.
 
Last edited:

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
How is it not an account of creation when it describes God creating things?

Let me ask you a question:

Does a change in topic, tone, language means that a book automatically has a different author than the one claimed?
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
Let me ask you a question:

Does a change in topic, tone, language means that a book automatically has a different author than the one claimed?

It's not just a change in topic, but a change in writing style and narrative purpose, and yes, these things are strong hints of authorship. It doesn't mean that they're necessarily so but an unbiased literary analysis will trend in that direction. I think "why would the same author start using a different name for God" is a legitimate and fundamental question.

What it basically boils down is applying the same standards of literary analysis to the Bible that are applied to other ancient works, no more or less.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
It's not just a change in topic, but a change in writing style and narrative purpose, and yes, these things are strong hints of authorship. It doesn't mean that they're necessarily so but an unbiased literary analysis will trend in that direction. I think "why would the same author start using a different name for God" is a legitimate and fundamental question.

What it basically boils down is applying the same standards of literary analysis to the Bible that are applied to other ancient works, no more or less.

I'm not sure what more you need. Genesis changes topics completely from chapters 1 to 2 -- from creation, to the fall of man. If the "style" stayed the same, then I'd be suspect of collusion in an an attempt to hide dual authorship.

Sometime, I call my wife by her name, call her "sweetheart", or "baby". Does that mean I'm not her husband depending on how I address her?

Modern scholars fail every ancient text before allowing the text to fail them. Maybe a century ago we had unbiased scholarship, but nowadays they're (ancient texts) all guilty until proven innocent.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
It's not just a change in topic, but a change in writing style and narrative purpose, and yes, these things are strong hints of authorship. It doesn't mean that they're necessarily so but an unbiased literary analysis will trend in that direction. I think "why would the same author start using a different name for God" is a legitimate and fundamental question.

What it basically boils down is applying the same standards of literary analysis to the Bible that are applied to other ancient works, no more or less.

Just to add, after reading some definitions of writing style, it can change at the whim of the writer.

In short, that's very weak evidence as to a change in author. I would expect certain words and phrases to be changed if the situation and purpose changes.

I think this is weak evidence.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
I'm not sure what more you need. Genesis changes topics completely from chapters 1 to 2 -- from creation, to the fall of man. If the "style" stayed the same, then I'd be suspect of collusion in an an attempt to hide dual authorship.

Sometime, I call my wife by her name, call her "sweetheart", or "baby". Does that mean I'm not her husband depending on how I address her?

This isn't at all what I'm talking about when I refer to writing "style", more to the big shift you'd see in the way people write centuries apart, and in the type of literature and intended audience. If I was writing an op-ed piece in contemporary style then suddenly inserted a Shakespearean sonnet I think you'd question the authorship.

But this analysis really has to look at original texts (or at least closest to original that we know of) because translation smooths a lot of it over, as does intent of the translator.

Modern scholars fail every ancient text before allowing the text to fail them. Maybe a century ago we had unbiased scholarship, but nowadays they're (ancient texts) all guilty until proven innocent.

Modern scholars aren't "failing" the text by applying a standard of analysis that's consistent with how they'd view any other piece. This is totally separate from evaluating the veracity or impact the text has. It's not their fault that your value of Genesis relies on it having been written as a single coherent source at the same time by the same author (and inspired by God). To actually insert that kind of presupposition into their study would be incredibly biased, and is also the norm for what a lot of traditional Biblical scholarship. It didn't become biased, it became secular, which is another way for saying it became more honest.

I know the popular reaction to anything that contradicts Christian tradition is to say that the people only want to discredit Christianity, but that doesn't hold up very well when they show their work and the work checks out.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I happen to believe the Earth is only about 10,000 to 12,000 years old, so for someone to find a fossil that dates back to only 4,000 years ago isn't a problem for me.
Ah, the theory that G-d made the Earth quite recently but made everything look really old because He is a dick who wants as many of us as possible to stay the Hell off His Heavenly lawn. Literally, stay the Hell off.

Or maybe G-d is actually gay and made everything look really old just because He likes antiquing on Sunday. After all, He didn't create woman until Adam started bitching about there not being any. Kind of makes one wonder . . .

Are you still following nonphylogenetic taxonomy werepossum?
Nope, but although I can understand the academic world of Vulgo vel pereo I dislike changes from what I learned forty years ago unless it brings true advancement to the science. It's the eternal war between lumpers and splitters. Nonetheless, whether one is a lumper (monophylist) or a splitter (polyphilest) one cannot lump together Old World monkeys and great apes as monkeys on the one hand, and New World monkeys on the other. Either apes, New World monkeys, and Old World monkeys are three separate monophyletic groups within Simmiiformes, or apes and Old World monkeys are two separate monophyletic groups within Catarrhini, but either way hominids are not monkeys. Otherwise the superfamily Hominoidea serves no purpose.

It is clear "the beginning" is referring to right before the big bang. God created the heavens and the earth far too close to each other. Upon said creation, the words "I dun goofed" were uttered as the mass all collided in a violent explosion, creating the expanding universe we now know.
:D In the beginning G-d Created the Heavens and the Earth and then said "Holy Me! What the Hell was THAT?" And Lucifer said "I don't know, but I'm changing my name and moving to Hell just in case it happens again." So reads the Book of Possum.

As far as reading the Bible literally, two thousand years after Christ' sacrifice we still aren't anywhere near understanding G-d's mysterious plan. Are we really going to debate what people thousands of years ago got right and what they got wrong? Seems to me that's like arguing over a toddler's written account of a Feynman lecture, and while we could certainly argue over the significance of a particular shade of Crayola, I doubt it sheds much light on Feynman's literal message.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
This isn't at all what I'm talking about when I refer to writing "style", more to the big shift you'd see in the way people write centuries apart, and in the type of literature and intended audience. If I was writing an op-ed piece in contemporary style then suddenly inserted a Shakespearean sonnet I think you'd question the authorship

Genesis 1:1 and 6:1 uses the same word "ba·ra" (Created).

Genesis 1:1 is said to be written by the source called "P". Yet we find the same word at Genesis 6:7 in the source supposed to be “J.”.

Why do we see the same word used in different parts of the book, which is supposed to be the criteria used to denote different authors?

I have more examples that contradict the Documentary Theory, which you seem to agree with.

Example 2: "Land of Canaan" appearing in a few texts (Ge 12:5; 13:12a; 16:3; 17:8) is said to be peculiarly of the writer they claims as "P," and therefore these critics hold that "P" wrote these passages. But in chapters 42, 44, 47, and 50, we find the same expression in the writings attributed by the same critics to "J" and "E".

No, the only thing "incoherent" is this silly "scholarship", which is self-contradictory.

lol
 
Last edited:

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
That's funny, all I ever said was that the two creation accounts in Gen 1-2 appear to have different authorships, I guess I missed all this stuff I said about the rest of Genesis...
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,695
31,043
146
this is the kind of idiotry that only idiots swallow as "honest reporting."

I like them lining up, so you can easily spot the loony toons. This thread is useful.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Ah, the theory that G-d made the Earth quite recently but made everything look really old because He is a dick who wants as many of us as possible to stay the Hell off His Heavenly lawn. Literally, stay the Hell off.

Or maybe G-d is actually gay and made everything look really old just because He likes antiquing on Sunday. After all, He didn't create woman until Adam started bitching about there not being any. Kind of makes one wonder . . .


Nope, but although I can understand the academic world of Vulgo vel pereo I dislike changes from what I learned forty years ago unless it brings true advancement to the science. It's the eternal war between lumpers and splitters. Nonetheless, whether one is a lumper (monophylist) or a splitter (polyphilest) one cannot lump together Old World monkeys and great apes as monkeys on the one hand, and New World monkeys on the other. Either apes, New World monkeys, and Old World monkeys are three separate monophyletic groups within Simmiiformes, or apes and Old World monkeys are two separate monophyletic groups within Catarrhini, but either way hominids are not monkeys. Otherwise the superfamily Hominoidea serves no purpose.


:D In the beginning G-d Created the Heavens and the Earth and then said "Holy Me! What the Hell was THAT?" And Lucifer said "I don't know, but I'm changing my name and moving to Hell just in case it happens again." So reads the Book of Possum.

As far as reading the Bible literally, two thousand years after Christ' sacrifice we still aren't anywhere near understanding G-d's mysterious plan. Are we really going to debate what people thousands of years ago got right and what they got wrong? Seems to me that's like arguing over a toddler's written account of a Feynman lecture, and while we could certainly argue over the significance of a particular shade of Crayola, I doubt it sheds much light on Feynman's literal message.

Must be one of those Apocryphal books we hear about.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,695
31,043
146
Yes, but that doesn't mean creationists cannot be scientists. Science isn't a members-only club.

It isn't members-only, but it's definitely "Creationists-not allowed."

Creationism is the rejection of science. It is the abject rejection of question. Creationism allows you to only go so far, as in "Well, this dude did it, so no reason to investigate that claim of creation beyond some dude wanted it all to happen."

Or, much worse: "I know this dude did it, so let me find evidence to show that this dude did it."

If you don't understand why that last statement is wrong, then you have no business commenting on the subject.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
That's funny, all I ever said was that the two creation accounts in Gen 1-2 appear to have different authorships, I guess I missed all this stuff I said about the rest of Genesis...

Well, you cannot make that claim without bringing some evidence, and this Documentary Hypothesis was supposedly some good evidence.

I posted what I did to directly refute your earlier claim that since a different term for God is used in chapter 2, that means there is a different author.

How do you account for the same word being used throughout the Genesis account, then? Then does that mean that there is only ONE author?

This hypothesis fails on its own merit.