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

[Exophase]

Huh? Who said Genesis 1 isn't Chronological?

You said Genesis 2 had a non-chronological ordering. I claimed that the language of Genesis 2 suggested otherwise, giving a specific example from Gen 2:18... and now you think I'm talking about Genesis 1? What's wrong with you? Are you really reading with your eyes open?

Christian Fundamentalists view the Bible the exact same way you do, as strictly literal, which is why they're also wrong.

Like I said in my previous post - the language of the chapters doesn't suggest an intention of a non-literal reading. Generally I'd like a reason to not read something literally. Of course, I still allowed the possibility that this wasn't the intention, I simply considered it less likely.

It's really all academic though, trying to establish the intention of the authors of myths.

I also think it's hilarious how critical you are of fundamentalists while simultaneously insisting that the Gospels must have been written by the apostles as ascribed by Church tradition (even where the books themselves contain no hint of claim to authorship)

 

[Retro Rob]

Not to mention, it even says that God made animals as a consequence of man's condition:

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.”

Huh? Where does it say God made animals as a consequence? In fact, you left out the rest of that where it said that was for the purpose of "naming" them in that particular passage, but it doesn't mention the purpose of animals in that passage.

You're not a fundy, you're an idiot.

 

[Exophase]

Huh? Where does it say God made animals as a consequence? In fact, you left out the rest of that where it said Adam was for the purpose of "naming" them.

You're not a fundy, you're an idiot.

It says it right in the fucking verse I quoted. I am not going to paste it again. Maybe your problem is that you don't understand what the word consequence means? Let me guess, you think it means a punishment? And I'm the idiot?

No kidding I'm not a fundy. No kidding.

 

[smackababy]

Christian Fundamentalists view the Bible the exact same way you do, as strictly literal, which is why they're also wrong.

Who are you to decide which part is to be interpreted 'strictly literal' and which part isn't? You believe in God and that he sent his only son to be killed for our sins right? Why take that part 'strictly literal' but not the part about being able to kill you wife or own slaves? You don't get to pick and choose which parts are fiction and which aren't. It is either all an allegory about sacrifice and betterment of self OR it is a literal story about some supernatural shit, with a bunch of ideas we know are stupid.

 

[Victorian Gray]

whatever happened to old whathisname, Mark Armitage?

 

[Retro Rob]

I also think it's hilarious how critical you are of fundamentalists while simultaneously insisting that the Gospels must have been written by the apostles as ascribed by Church tradition (even where the books themselves contain no hint of claim to authorship)

Non-sequitur.

What does this have to do with Genesis? Another diversion, I guess.

 

[BudAshes]

If you are not a fundamentalist then your religion is like Santa Clause. It's a fun thing you tell your kids in order to keep a fantasy alive. I appreciate that. Unfortunately religion is a slippery slope. This guy slid down the slope and humiliated himself and everyone dumb enough to believe him in the process.

 

[soulcougher73]

*sigh* another thread of Rob getting owned over and over again. Bored now.

 

[BudAshes]

Who are you to decide which part is to be interpreted 'strictly literal' and which part isn't? You believe in God and that he sent his only son to be killed for our sins right? Why take that part 'strictly literal' but not the part about being able to kill you wife or own slaves? You don't get to pick and choose which parts are fiction and which aren't. It is either all an allegory about sacrifice and betterment of self OR it is a literal story about some supernatural shit, with a bunch of ideas we know are stupid.

Honestly it seems like the Islamists are following the bible pretty spot on.

 

[Retro Rob]

It says it right in the fucking verse I quoted. I am not going to paste it again. Maybe your problem is that you don't understand what the word consequence means? Let me guess, you think it means a punishment? And I'm the idiot?

No kidding I'm not a fundy. No kidding.

Well, I admit that I did define it as "punishment" My bad.

Please, explain in what sense where the creation of animals a "consequence". I've never associated that word with that account.

 

[Exophase]

Non-sequitur.

What does this have to do with Genesis? Another diversion, I guess.

So the parts of my posts that actually do respond to your arguments get ignored or "snipped" and summarily called wrong without justification, but I'm the one diverting?

The part you quoted doesn't have anything to do with Genesis, it merely has to do with your hypocrisy - you're intolerant of Biblical literalism but hold a stringent literalism towards Church tradition. You think that the traditional authorship of the Gospels is a necessary condition for their relevance and authority. Maybe fundamentalists feel the same way about their reading of Genesis.

Well, I admit that I did define it as "punishment" My bad.

Please, explain in what sense where the creation of animals a "consequence". I've never associated that word with that account.

Genesis 2:18 indicates, and I paraphrase, that God made animals after reflecting on man's condition of being alone and deciding to improve it.

Pull up Google's first definition for consequence:

"a result or effect of an action or condition."

The condition: man is alone (and it isn't good). The effect: God creates animals.

And seriously, I don't get what you're pushing semantics for on this, the underlying point is obvious: God made animals in response to evaluating man's condition. Ergo, God made animals after he made humans. (or at least, after he made the male human)

 

[soulcougher73]

Well, I admit that I did define it as "punishment" My bad.

Please, explain in what sense where the creation of animals a "consequence". I've never associated that word with that account.

I think he just means because god created man he felt they should have animals as well as to not be alone would be my guess. Consequence may be an odd word to use, but i was able to follow its intent.

 

[norseamd]

Um, no. Catarrhini is a subdivision which contains one superfamily of which we are part. You might as well call him a sea squirt as a monkey. I would not be surprised if his employer has a requirement that lab technicians not independently publish. One can be extremely competent technically and still produce papers embarrassing to one's employer.

Are you still following nonphylogenetic taxonomy werepossum?

 

[OutHouse]

http://youtu.be/ztJ_wmr6IS0

 

[norseamd]

 

[Paul98]

Exophase don't expect Rob to understand what he is reading.

Take a look at my post 47 and his response in 49. If he can't follow that what do you expect

 

[Exophase]

So what you're saying is that Old World Monkeys are New World Monkeys?

Oh, and humans are fish

 

[Exophase]

Exophase don't expect Rob to understand what he is reading.

Take a look at my post 47 and his response in 49. If he can't follow that what do you expect

Oh, I read it alraedy, and I've had a bunch of these back and forths with him so far, I don't really know why I'm doing this ;p

I've been thinking more about the earlier statement too, "Genesis 2 is simply a topical arrangement in order of importance." I don't know why I didn't catch on this, but I guess that means:

men > wild animals and birds > women
or
men < wild animals and birds < women

Since that's the order in which their creation is arranged... Really a pretty astounding statement.

 

[Retro Rob]

My point is that a creationist such as the subject of the OP should learn how to suspend his beliefs when working as a "scientist" else he should find another line of work. The fact that he thinks he was fired because of his beliefs tells me that he should do one or the other.

So you had a crisis of faith and were shunned by your family/friends and decided to go back "into the fold"?

Lol shunned? No, I walked away...like most people do.

 

[norseamd]

No.

We are Old World Monkeys. New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys (including Apes) are monkeys and the term for the group is Simians. We and other Old World Monkeys are not New World Monkeys. New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys are separate branches of the infraorder Simiiformes. The question is whether monkeys commonly referred to as Old World Monkeys (meaning excluding Apes) are monophyletic or paraphyletic. Basically if the rest of the Old World Monkeys are descended from a common ancestor who branched away from the Apes or if the Apes fall in with the rest of the Old World Monkeys.

And yes apes are fish.

Walking Land Fish.

 

[alzan]

whatever happened to old whathisname, Mark Armitage?

He's busy getting his evidence together that proves he was fired for his beliefs.

 

[Retro Rob]

So the parts of my posts that actually do respond to your arguments get ignored or "snipped" and summarily called wrong without justification, but I'm the one diverting?

Stick to one subject. Don't go off into your side-rants about who wrote the Gospels and the Flood, which has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible shows the world being 6,000 years old.

That makes it obvious you just want to win an argument.

 

[smackababy]

Rob, I am not sure if you missed it or are simply avoiding the question, so I will ask again.

Since you have demonstrated you are against interpreting certain aspects of the Bible in a literal context, what makes you an authority as to what should and shouldn't be interpreted literally? Why do passages condoning slavery or the treatment (and killing) of a wife not get literal leeway, but miracles do? Why is it that only certain parts of the book get that distinction? Shouldn't the Bible either be an allegory on sacrifice and man's role in keeping humanity or a literal, factual story about some supernatural shit?

 

[realibrad]

Rob, I am not sure if you missed it or are simply avoiding the question, so I will ask again.

Since you have demonstrated you are against interpreting certain aspects of the Bible in a literal context, what makes you an authority as to what should and shouldn't be interpreted literally? Why do passages condoning slavery or the treatment (and killing) of a wife not get literal leeway, but miracles do? Why is it that only certain parts of the book get that distinction? Shouldn't the Bible either be an allegory on sacrifice and man's role in keeping humanity or a literal, factual story about some supernatural shit?

Yes, I would also like Rob to answer this.

 

[Exophase]

Stick to one subject. Don't go off into your side-rants about who wrote the Gospels and the Flood, which has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible shows the world being 6,000 years old.

That makes it obvious you just want to win an argument.

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?