Watch National Geographic

[mox 298]

I understand the importance of the veracity of the creation story. Believe me, I do. I just disagree that an account of a time when the sun didn't exist would have to use our definition of days, since said definition relies on the existence of the sun, which, as I said, didn't exist.

Well, the bigger question is why God needed 6 days to begin with. Since all things are possible with god (Matthew 19:26), he should have been able to make everything pop into existence with a single thought. That was one of the very first thoughts that led me to question my beliefs.

But to answer your objection that we can't measure a day without the sun, I'd have thought that was obvious: within the context of Christianity, the definition of a day was created by god, not by man. Genesis 1:5, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." And because the dome of the sky wasn't created until day 2, we can assume that god had an exact idea of how long a day is even before it was necessary. Which leads to the conclusion that the definition of a day is as long as god wanted it to be, and the length of a day and night conform to this definition. And it follows that a week was also defined by god as 6 days of work and 1 day of rest.

So the answer to your objection that literal days couldn't exist without the sun is that god made the decision. So literal days did indeed exist without the sun, just like time seems to have existed before the first day (since there is no mention of it needing to be created, we can assume it already existed).

(actually, Genesis is almost a complete plagiarism of the Babylonian creation myth, and the 7-day week is also a Babylonian cultural invention, borrowed by the ancient Hebrews. The things that the Hebrew god did on each day are an exact mirror of what the Babylonian gods did.)

Are you starting to see why I find all of this completely insane? I mean, I can certainly see why you and most Christians try to make your own world view fit the scriptures. (strangely enough, you seem to take a very literal view on the Book of Mormon though.) But then why even believe any of it if you have to go to such lengths? If you need to make the Bible conform to your own sensibilities, and outright discard the scripture that would get you thrown into jail (i.e. stoning your children, raping your enemy's women), then what good is any of it? Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, which is very nice but you hardly need a book to tell you to do this. But he does tell us to beat our slaves, which you probably would need a book for because most people would find it despicable. (Luke 12:47) And I certainly don't know where we got this idea that he's such a lamb. In Matthew 10:34 he says "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Certainly I must be reading this out of context, and I'm sure a hundred different Christians would give me a hundred different interpretations as to what Jesus was really saying, because it would be unthinkable that Jesus literally means what he said. Again, interpreting the scriptures to support a belief system that you can morally and realistically handle. (it's interesting that visaveteran earlier pointed out that religion gives us morality, and in a way I guess he's right. Certainly a moral person wouldn't be able to practice Christianity as it's written, so they'd have to bend it to their own interpretation!)

And, as I have never disputed the fact that other groups also came to the Americas, the DNA of a couple dozen people could be completely undetectable.

So these couple dozen people were a complete race unto themselves? They had no other origins outside of their own population of roughly 24? Or have I completely missed something here?

It amazes me that every generation of people has assumed that they got everything right, all the while aware of the utter ignorance and misconceptions of previous generations. I call it hubris.

Scientists makes mistakes, sure. And every time one makes a mistake, there's a thousand standing around gleefully rubbing their hands to expose the mistake. Your argument here seems to be that because science has been wrong before, we can never trust DNA testing. That's mighty convenient, as it makes Smith's claims about native Americans completely untestable forever. Lemme ask you this: if you had cancer, would you consider chemotherapy? Ever had a vaccination? Ever been on an airplane? Ever drank water from a city water supply? Ever taken an aspirin or any other drug? Every single time you placed your life in science's hands. You de facto believed they got it right without even a second thought. But when it comes time to put your faith to scientific scrutiny, all of a sudden science is nothing better than a ####### shoot.

Well, I think they migrated across the Pacific and they weren't Jewish. Dating of fossils is actually a very inexact science. And I have never heard the assertion that a curelom is a mastodon.

Okay, well I've completely lost the chain of hypothetical emigration then.

My ex-mormon friend told me curelom were thought to be mastodons or elephants. (ok, re-reading the chat log...he actually said they were speculated to be "mastodon or elephant-like creatures.") In any case, there's no fossil record of these animals. Horses and donkeys also remain a problem as they did not exist on this continent during the time Smith claims they did.

Actually, if this were the case, there is no reason to expect a sharing of markers between Asians and Jews because I didn't say anything about Jews.

Oy. Like I said, I've completely lost the train of how you're saying genetic markers could be distributed in a way to support Smith's claims. The facts are that native Americans came from Asia. Nobody in the Middle East came from Asia. Nobody in Asia came from the Middle East. Jews are their own race. Every race on this planet is accounted for, and we know where they all came from. If you are claiming that there was a completely unique race of about 24 people who had their own genetic identity, then all I can say is that although there is no proof, it is highly unlikely and mighty convenient.

[SMR 368]

Well, the bigger question is why God needed 6 days to begin with. Since all things are possible with god (Matthew 19:26), he should have been able to make everything pop into existence with a single thought. That was one of the very first thoughts that led me to question my beliefs.

The LDS church has a rather complete explanation of why we are here, where we are going, and why God does what he does. It's an extended discussion that I don't expect you would take seriously.

But to answer your objection that we can't measure a day without the sun, I'd have thought that was obvious: within the context of Christianity, the definition of a day was created by god, not by man. Genesis 1:5, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." And because the dome of the sky wasn't created until day 2, we can assume that god had an exact idea of how long a day is even before it was necessary. Which leads to the conclusion that the definition of a day is as long as god wanted it to be, and the length of a day and night conform to this definition. And it follows that a week was also defined by god as 6 days of work and 1 day of rest.

So the answer to your objection that literal days couldn't exist without the sun is that god made the decision. So literal days did indeed exist without the sun, just like time seems to have existed before the first day (since there is no mention of it needing to be created, we can assume it already existed).

(actually, Genesis is almost a complete plagiarism of the Babylonian creation myth, and the 7-day week is also a Babylonian cultural invention, borrowed by the ancient Hebrews. The things that the Hebrew god did on each day are an exact mirror of what the Babylonian gods did.)

So, you acknowledge that God could make a day equal whatever he wanted it to equal but somehow prohibit him from changing the definition? I'm pretty sure my position is logically consistent and don't really care what restrictions you care to attribute to God.

As to the Hebrews plagiarizing the Babylonian myth, you have ignored the obvious. God also created the Babylonians and they also descended from Adam. It stands to reason that the story could also be passed down through the Babylonians as well.

Are you starting to see why I find all of this completely insane? I mean, I can certainly see why you and most Christians try to make your own world view fit the scriptures. (strangely enough, you seem to take a very literal view on the Book of Mormon though.) But then why even believe any of it if you have to go to such lengths? If you need to make the Bible conform to your own sensibilities, and outright discard the scripture that would get you thrown into jail (i.e. stoning your children, raping your enemy's women), then what good is any of it? Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, which is very nice but you hardly need a book to tell you to do this. But he does tell us to beat our slaves, which you probably would need a book for because most people would find it despicable. (Luke 12:47) And I certainly don't know where we got this idea that he's such a lamb. In Matthew 10:34 he says "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Certainly I must be reading this out of context, and I'm sure a hundred different Christians would give me a hundred different interpretations as to what Jesus was really saying, because it would be unthinkable that Jesus literally means what he said. Again, interpreting the scriptures to support a belief system that you can morally and realistically handle. (it's interesting that visaveteran earlier pointed out that religion gives us morality, and in a way I guess he's right. Certainly a moral person wouldn't be able to practice Christianity as it's written, so they'd have to bend it to their own interpretation!)

You have some rather interesting interpretations of the scriptures. Luke 12:47 is not recommending the beating of servants. A simple review of the neighboring verses shows that Christ is explaining the justice of God, likening all to servants and God to the master of the servants. The verses explain that someone who knew the will of God and didn't do it is more guilty than someone who simply didn't know the will of God.

So these couple dozen people were a complete race unto themselves? They had no other origins outside of their own population of roughly 24? Or have I completely missed something here?

Scientists makes mistakes, sure. And every time one makes a mistake, there's a thousand standing around gleefully rubbing their hands to expose the mistake. Your argument here seems to be that because science has been wrong before, we can never trust DNA testing. That's mighty convenient, as it makes Smith's claims about native Americans completely untestable forever. Lemme ask you this: if you had cancer, would you consider chemotherapy? Ever had a vaccination? Ever been on an airplane? Ever drank water from a city water supply? Ever taken an aspirin or any other drug? Every single time you placed your life in science's hands. You de facto believed they got it right without even a second thought. But when it comes time to put your faith to scientific scrutiny, all of a sudden science is nothing better than a ####### shoot.

Okay, well I've completely lost the chain of hypothetical emigration then.

My ex-mormon friend told me curelom were thought to be mastodons or elephants. (ok, re-reading the chat log...he actually said they were speculated to be "mastodon or elephant-like creatures.") In any case, there's no fossil record of these animals. Horses and donkeys also remain a problem as they did not exist on this continent during the time Smith claims they did.

Oy. Like I said, I've completely lost the train of how you're saying genetic markers could be distributed in a way to support Smith's claims. The facts are that native Americans came from Asia. Nobody in the Middle East came from Asia. Nobody in Asia came from the Middle East. Jews are their own race. Every race on this planet is accounted for, and we know where they all came from. If you are claiming that there was a completely unique race of about 24 people who had their own genetic identity, then all I can say is that although there is no proof, it is highly unlikely and mighty convenient.

No, genetics cannot be used to determine geography. The facts are that the current residents of Asia and the Native Americans share a common ancestor. That doesn't indicate that the Native Americans came from Asia. Asians and Native Americans could have come from a common area that is neither Asia nor America. You are making absolute statements about how nobody moved from Asia to the ME or vice versa, but genetics does not conclusively determine migration patterns. It only determines who is related to whom (and even then with some error). After those relationships are predicted, further conjecture can be made as to likely migration patterns. But using genetics to conclusively determine migration patterns is laughable.

If, for instance, members of the tribes of Joseph were scattered from the ME as is recorded in the Bible and all those that didn't leave the ME were killed, then there would be no genetic record of Josephites in the ME. Yet some of those scattered could have traveled to Asia and some of those scattered could have traveled to the Americas. Genetics does nothing to disprove this chain of events. The only thing is it's perhaps a less likely migration pattern than a small group of Asians going to America. But it's still completely possible.

I'm not basing my faith in the Book of Mormon on genetic evidence. I know, from other sources, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and a literal record. However, you are taking a some genetic data that could be explained in many ways and clinging to the explanation that precludes the Book of Mormon because you want the Book of Mormon to not be true.

[mox 298]

So, you acknowledge that God could make a day equal whatever he wanted it to equal but somehow prohibit him from changing the definition?

No. I'm saying that god has no reason to change his definition of a day. Why would he do that? If we've learned nothing else from scripture, we've learned that God does not change his mind. Ecclesiastes 3:14: I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

As to the Hebrews plagiarizing the Babylonian myth, you have ignored the obvious. God also created the Babylonians and they also descended from Adam. It stands to reason that the story could also be passed down through the Babylonians as well.

Except that the Babylonians worshiped multiple gods. If you're attributing the Babylonian creation myth to god, why did he tell the Babylonians a story about multiple gods, and another story to ancient Hebrews? Why, in Sumeria, was Atra-hasis warned by Enki, the god of the waters, to build an ark, but in the Hebrew version it was Noah being warned by god? Why did god need to mislead the Babylonians?

You have some rather interesting interpretations of the scriptures. Luke 12:47 is not recommending the beating of servants. A simple review of the neighboring verses shows that Christ is explaining the justice of God, likening all to servants and God to the master of the servants. The verses explain that someone who knew the will of God and didn't do it is more guilty than someone who simply didn't know the will of God.

Not exactly. Jesus is basically saying "look, the lord is your master, and you're his slave. Now, if one of your slaves wasn't doing what he was supposed to be doing, you'd beat him right? Well same thing!" Jesus makes a one to one connection between how you're supposed to treat your own slaves to how you should be expected to be treated by God. He's endorsing earthly slavery (and beating said slaves) by endorsing slavery to god.

Even if you're not convinced that Jesus is endorsing the beating of slaves, he certainly seems to be comfortable with the very idea of slavery. In the entirety of the Bible we never see slavery outright rejected, and in fact it is often endorsed. In Leviticus 25:44-46, god even gives instructions on how to treat your slaves (referred to as "bondmen" here): Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

So basically, god is saying that you can buy slaves from the nations around you, and you can also make slaves of non-believers just passing through, and the families of the members of their tribes. These slaves are yours to keep, you can pass them down to your heirs, but you will not rule over your fellow Israelites harshly.

I see a lot of Christians out there mad as hell about wanting to display the 10 Commandments in public buildings, but I've never seen a single Christian demand the repeal of the Emancipation Proclamation. Another example of Christians discarding the parts of the Bible they can't stomach, all the while insisting the Bible is absolute truth.

No, genetics cannot be used to determine geography. The facts are that the current residents of Asia and the Native Americans share a common ancestor. That doesn't indicate that the Native Americans came from Asia. Asians and Native Americans could have come from a common area that is neither Asia nor America. You are making absolute statements about how nobody moved from Asia to the ME or vice versa, but genetics does not conclusively determine migration patterns. It only determines who is related to whom (and even then with some error). After those relationships are predicted, further conjecture can be made as to likely migration patterns. But using genetics to conclusively determine migration patterns is laughable.

If, for instance, members of the tribes of Joseph were scattered from the ME as is recorded in the Bible and all those that didn't leave the ME were killed, then there would be no genetic record of Josephites in the ME. Yet some of those scattered could have traveled to Asia and some of those scattered could have traveled to the Americas. Genetics does nothing to disprove this chain of events. The only thing is it's perhaps a less likely migration pattern than a small group of Asians going to America. But it's still completely possible.

Ok, you're not getting it. You admitted that you are out of your depth when it comes to genetics, and this has become very evident. I'm just going to stop here with the genetics line of reasoning, because you've got some very clear misconceptions that I'm unable to correct. The science is there if you care to educate yourself. I don't mean this unkindly, I just don't know how to make myself clear enough for you to understand.

I'm not basing my faith in the Book of Mormon on genetic evidence. I know, from other sources, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and a literal record. However, you are taking a some genetic data that could be explained in many ways and clinging to the explanation that precludes the Book of Mormon because you want the Book of Mormon to not be true.

It doesn't matter what I want. I mean yes, you're right, I can't think of a worse situation than to live under a real Christian god, Mormon or otherwise. I'd rather live in the most Taliban-infested region of Afghanistan than live under what it would be like under the actual god of the Bible or Koran. But reality isn't about what I want or don't want. I want the universe to include a mechanism whereby Liv Tyler gives me hand jobs whenever I'd like Liv Tyler to give me a hand job. But even if I wrote a 600 page book detailing this amazingly awesome universe, it wouldn't make it true. (believe me, I've tried, all it got me was a restraining order...)

Whether I want religion to be true or not has absolutely no bearing on what the evidence can show to be true. Rational human beings demand evidence. You've chosen faith over rationalism, so no amount of evidence is going to satisfy you. But if you are going to claim that your book(s) are the word and the law without question, you can't just conveniently ignore some portions and re-interpret other portions because it doesn't completely fit what you're comfortable with. If Christianity (or any other religion) really was the way and the truth, then it should be obvious, irrefutable, and mesh with our observed reality. It does none of these things. Apologists are forced to reinterpret and rephrase their scriptures practically every single time we discover something new about our natural universe. Makes me think of when my kids were young and trying to get a lie past me. Every time I'd point out a flaw in their lie, they'd change their story until even they lost track of it. If religion were true, I wouldn't always feel like I was being lied to.

[SMR 368]

No. I'm saying that god has no reason to change his definition of a day. Why would he do that? If we've learned nothing else from scripture, we've learned that God does not change his mind. Ecclesiastes 3:14: I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

This line of argument has sort of digressed. The fact that day doesn't have to mean a literal 24 hour period doesn't bother me. I don't see that as a contradiction. You do. I don't see this going anywhere.

Except that the Babylonians worshiped multiple gods. If you're attributing the Babylonian creation myth to god, why did he tell the Babylonians a story about multiple gods, and another story to ancient Hebrews? Why, in Sumeria, was Atra-hasis warned by Enki, the god of the waters, to build an ark, but in the Hebrew version it was Noah being warned by god? Why did god need to mislead the Babylonians?

No, God didn't mislead anyone. Everyone on Earth descended from Noah and, in the beginning, had the same history/creation myth or whatever you want to call it, etc. As time passes, this story becomes corrupted as people move away from God and modify the teachings of God as seems right to them. Thus, in many cultures the fragments of the same myths remain while various details have been changed over time.

Not exactly. Jesus is basically saying "look, the lord is your master, and you're his slave. Now, if one of your slaves wasn't doing what he was supposed to be doing, you'd beat him right? Well same thing!" Jesus makes a one to one connection between how you're supposed to treat your own slaves to how you should be expected to be treated by God. He's endorsing earthly slavery (and beating said slaves) by endorsing slavery to god.

You interpret the scriptures how you want to. It's interesting that you have such a desire to interpret them when you think they are false anyways.

Even if you're not convinced that Jesus is endorsing the beating of slaves, he certainly seems to be comfortable with the very idea of slavery. In the entirety of the Bible we never see slavery outright rejected, and in fact it is often endorsed. In Leviticus 25:44-46, god even gives instructions on how to treat your slaves (referred to as "bondmen" here): Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

So basically, god is saying that you can buy slaves from the nations around you, and you can also make slaves of non-believers just passing through, and the families of the members of their tribes. These slaves are yours to keep, you can pass them down to your heirs, but you will not rule over your fellow Israelites harshly.

I see a lot of Christians out there mad as hell about wanting to display the 10 Commandments in public buildings, but I've never seen a single Christian demand the repeal of the Emancipation Proclamation. Another example of Christians discarding the parts of the Bible they can't stomach, all the while insisting the Bible is absolute truth.

The law of Moses is not a Christian law but rather a law that God created for people that were unwilling to live in a Christian way. The law has been abolished. When Christ came, he did, in fact, instate a new law. You're free to see the Bible as you want, but that doesn't make you a Biblical authority.

Ok, you're not getting it. You admitted that you are out of your depth when it comes to genetics, and this has become very evident. I'm just going to stop here with the genetics line of reasoning, because you've got some very clear misconceptions that I'm unable to correct. The science is there if you care to educate yourself. I don't mean this unkindly, I just don't know how to make myself clear enough for you to understand.

You're the one with misconceptions. You seem to think that genetics allows you to determine where a person came from. That's simply not true. Genetics allows you to determine where people with similar genetics are today. That is, it may allow you to see that Asians and Native Americans have similar genetics. That does not conclusively prove that any ancestors of Native Americans ever set foot in Asia.

For instance, if 3000 years ago, all Asians moved to Africa and all Africans moved to America and all Americans moved to Asia, there would be no genetic record of this at all. Genetics does not have something in each person that says, your ancestors lived in France. At most, it can say that people who have similar DNA to you at present live in France.

By combining archaeological evidence with genetics, you can try to paint a more complete picture. But such pictures are limited by the assumptions made.

Now, consider what would happen if the Babylonians attacked the ancient Josephites in Jerusalem and drove them into Asia while some fled to America. You would end up with people in Asia with genetic ties to people in America. No one in Jerusalem would be genetically tied to them although that is the only place they lived together.

Or, what if Americans migrated to Asia instead of the other way around? The genetic evidence would be the same. All I'm saying is you can use genetics to see who is related to whom but you can't use it to see where people lived.

It doesn't matter what I want. I mean yes, you're right, I can't think of a worse situation than to live under a real Christian god, Mormon or otherwise. I'd rather live in the most Taliban-infested region of Afghanistan than live under what it would be like under the actual god of the Bible or Koran. But reality isn't about what I want or don't want. I want the universe to include a mechanism whereby Liv Tyler gives me hand jobs whenever I'd like Liv Tyler to give me a hand job. But even if I wrote a 600 page book detailing this amazingly awesome universe, it wouldn't make it true. (believe me, I've tried, all it got me was a restraining order...)

Whether I want religion to be true or not has absolutely no bearing on what the evidence can show to be true. Rational human beings demand evidence. You've chosen faith over rationalism, so no amount of evidence is going to satisfy you. But if you are going to claim that your book(s) are the word and the law without question, you can't just conveniently ignore some portions and re-interpret other portions because it doesn't completely fit what you're comfortable with. If Christianity (or any other religion) really was the way and the truth, then it should be obvious, irrefutable, and mesh with our observed reality. It does none of these things. Apologists are forced to reinterpret and rephrase their scriptures practically every single time we discover something new about our natural universe. Makes me think of when my kids were young and trying to get a lie past me. Every time I'd point out a flaw in their lie, they'd change their story until even they lost track of it. If religion were true, I wouldn't always feel like I was being lied to.

You're right, whether or not you want religion to be true has absolutely no bearing on what the evidence can show to be true. But my religion does mesh with reality. A true religion leads people to true happiness in this life and the next. It's not a question of what assumptions some scientist is making or what some linguist thinks is the literal meaning of a text. I see the effect of my religion in my life and the lives of others. It makes people better, happier, more successful, more self reliant, and closer to and more focused on their families. That meshes with reality because it improves reality. That is truth.

[mox 298]

No, God didn't mislead anyone. Everyone on Earth descended from Noah and, in the beginning, had the same history/creation myth or whatever you want to call it, etc. As time passes, this story becomes corrupted as people move away from God and modify the teachings of God as seems right to them. Thus, in many cultures the fragments of the same myths remain while various details have been changed over time.

Except that the Babylonian creation myth predates Genesis. So by this reasoning, the Babylonians got it right and Genesis got it wrong. The Hebrews, being further from the story, must have "corrupted" the story. By this reasoning.

You interpret the scriptures how you want to. It's interesting that you have such a desire to interpret them when you think they are false anyways.

I interpret the Bible as a Christian should--one of the few benefits I have of actually having been one is a pretty good understanding of the work. The Bible is the supreme law and word of Christianity. If you're going to show Christianity to be false, that's where you start. It's also where Christians tend to start when you argue with them, so if you're going to argue with a Christian then you have to know your bible. Not that you need it to create a scientific argument, but between science and the complete fiction of the Bible (and by extension, Book of Mormon, Koran, Torah, etc) it makes it a lot easier.

The law of Moses is not a Christian law but rather a law that God created for people that were unwilling to live in a Christian way. The law has been abolished. When Christ came, he did, in fact, instate a new law. You're free to see the Bible as you want, but that doesn't make you a Biblical authority.

Jesus never abolished slavery. He in fact held up the institution multiple times. If you could quote this new law from scripture, as I have done to back up my arguments, I'd appreciate it.

And "The law of Moses" is certainly a Christian law, as Christ said he came to uphold the scripture of the prophets, not to abolish it.

You're the one with misconceptions.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but your understanding of genetics is incorrect in so many ways. You're trying to apply logic, which is great, but you only have about half the knowledge that you need to complete the picture. If you really are interested in the subject, you should read up on it before going further.

[SMR 368]

Except that the Babylonian creation myth predates Genesis. So by this reasoning, the Babylonians got it right and Genesis got it wrong. The Hebrews, being further from the story, must have "corrupted" the story. By this reasoning.

The creation story, as recorded in Genesis, is a vision that Moses had. The events depicted in the vision obviously happened a long time before Moses actually recorded Genesis. Genesis is accurate not because it is the original record that Adam recorded but rather because it is based on direct revelation received by Moses from God.

That is, Genesis, unlike the Babylonian record was not passed down and subject to corruption. This is really the key to obtaining knowledge from God and is the reason that the LDS church sees a living prophet as a necessity of the true church. Otherwise, you are relying on hearsay.

I interpret the Bible as a Christian should--one of the few benefits I have of actually having been one is a pretty good understanding of the work. The Bible is the supreme law and word of Christianity. If you're going to show Christianity to be false, that's where you start. It's also where Christians tend to start when you argue with them, so if you're going to argue with a Christiabn then you have to know your bible. Not that you need it to create a scientific argument, but between science and the complete fiction of the Bible (and by extension, Book of Mormon, Koran, Torah, etc) it makes it a lot easier.

Jesus never abolished slavery. He in fact held up the institution multiple times. If you could quote this new law from scripture, as I have done to back up my arguments, I'd appreciate it.

And "The law of Moses" is certainly a Christian law, as Christ said he came to uphold the scripture of the prophets, not to abolish it.

Who decided that you interpret the Bible as "a Christian should." That is a very subjective and biased statement.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but your understanding of genetics is incorrect in so many ways. You're trying to apply logic, which is great, but you only have about half the knowledge that you need to complete the picture. If you really are interested in the subject, you should read up on it before going further.

Okay, explain to me how genetics allows you to determine where a person's ancestors lived, conclusively. You're suggesting that if we analyze your DNA, we can tell where your 30-great grandfather was born. That's absurd.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

See why I am NOT an atheist!!!

Way too much discussion of fairy tales. We may as well argue if Alice could really pass through the looking glass.

The only amazing thing to me is that religion has persisted until now. Certainly up until the middle ages when the clergy kept the bible away from regular people and kept it printed in an obscure language in the fear that the people would actually read it, I could understand why people would buy into this tripe. But among educated people I simply cannot understand the continued existence of it. lack of self confidence maybe. failure in the earthly life and hope for a good life after one dies? whatever.

I will accept a person's right to believe anything they like and keep it to themselves because I am, first, a true liberal and believe in individual liberty over all, but as far as wasting a moment of my life with it...forget it. Just keep it away from me.

[mox 298]

The creation story, as recorded in Genesis, is a vision that Moses had. The events depicted in the vision obviously happened a long time before Moses actually recorded Genesis. Genesis is accurate not because it is the original record that Adam recorded but rather because it is based on direct revelation received by Moses from God.

That is, Genesis, unlike the Babylonian record was not passed down and subject to corruption. This is really the key to obtaining knowledge from God and is the reason that the LDS church sees a living prophet as a necessity of the true church. Otherwise, you are relying on hearsay.

Let me see if I understand this right. Moses had a vision, and it was recorded in Genesis but kept either secret or closely guarded. Somewhere along the line, the Babylonians learned about it and incorporated it into their own beliefs, thereby corrupting the story. Some centuries later, after the Babylonians had corrupted it, they decided to publish Moses' visions. Is that about right?

Can you show any historical proof of this at all? It's generally accepted among academics that the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) was heavily influenced by Babylonian mythology, and not the other way around. This was determined through linguistic analysis--co-opted language from the Babylonian language into Hebrew, and no examples of Hebrew co-opted into Babylonian. It's not just Genesis. There are parallels throughout all of the books of the Tanakh, the basis of the Old Testament. There is a very clear one-way co-op.

Who decided that you interpret the Bible as "a Christian should." That is a very subjective and biased statement.

Look. If you're going to argue with a librarian, you'd better know your Dewey-Decimal system. If you're going to argue with an architect, you'd better know the difference between an arc-boutant and an ogival arch. If you're going to argue with a comic book geek, you'd damn well better know the difference between red and green kryptonite. And so it follows that if you're going to argue with a Christian, you'd better know the Bible, because they sure as ####### are going to know it. You're trying to put me in an impossible position--if I know the bible, you're calling me "subjective and biased." (I don't understand what you mean by this, by the way) And if I didn't know the Bible, you'd tell me that I don't know the bible so I can't possibly understand.

You made the verifiably false claim that Jesus refuted slavery. I know the Bible well enough to know that this is incorrect, and I can find multiple instances where Jesus either endorses slavery or ignores it outright. And I can definitely show (and have shown, look a couple posts up) that the god of the Bible not only endorses slavery, but sets up guidelines on how to do it. How is any of this subjective and biased? I even provided chapter and verse, which you have not done.

This notion that the Old Testament is obsoleted by the New Testament is also untrue within the context of the Bible. I've quoted already chapter and verse where Jesus plainly says that the old prophets and the old laws still apply, as well as chapter and verse where Jesus says that the word of god is not open to interpretation. There is nothing "subjective and biased" about this. It's all in black, white, and red.

Okay, explain to me how genetics allows you to determine where a person's ancestors lived, conclusively. You're suggesting that if we analyze your DNA, we can tell where your 30-great grandfather was born. That's absurd.

If we had my 30-great grandfather's DNA, then yes, we could do that. And maybe this is where you're getting confused. This is a related but different area of DNA research. I'm not saying that some blood was drawn from a guy living on a reservation in Arizona and then we found his 30-great grandfather buried at 7521 Cemetery Road, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, thus proving migration across the Bering Strait. I'm saying that there are markers in the blood of American Indians that we can use to trace lineage conclusively. You're trying to come up with scenarios which falsify the results, and at the same time you're trying to claim that the research is flawed, so I really don't know where to take it from here. The evidence has been peer-reviewed and is accepted in the main stream scientific community. The research is out there, and there are no shortage of books that can explain even to the layman how this stuff works. But you're trying to debunk this science before you even know how it works. It's fine to be comfortable with your religion, but to paraphrase what I said earlier, if you're going to argue against science then you need to understand science first. I'm not a geneticist, but I am an engineer and have done a fair amount of work in research. I know a thing or two about the scientific method, and I can tell you that if it didn't work, you'd be sitting in front of a camp fire right now instead of a computer.

[SMR 368]

Let me see if I understand this right. Moses had a vision, and it was recorded in Genesis but kept either secret or closely guarded. Somewhere along the line, the Babylonians learned about it and incorporated it into their own beliefs, thereby corrupting the story. Some centuries later, after the Babylonians had corrupted it, they decided to publish Moses' visions. Is that about right?

Can you show any historical proof of this at all? It's generally accepted among academics that the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) was heavily influenced by Babylonian mythology, and not the other way around. This was determined through linguistic analysis--co-opted language from the Babylonian language into Hebrew, and no examples of Hebrew co-opted into Babylonian. It's not just Genesis. There are parallels throughout all of the books of the Tanakh, the basis of the Old Testament. There is a very clear one-way co-op.

No, you've changed what I'm saying again. First the creation happened. Then, Noah survived the flood. Noah taught his children about the creation and various records were made or at least those present remembered what was said. These accounts survived but were changed and appeared in various cultures.

Later, Moses had a vision on Mount Sinai in which he was told the true, uncorrupted version of the creation story. He recorded it and for the most part it has survived to present day as Genesis. The similarity between the stories is due to the fact that they are both based on the true version of events.

Look. If you're going to argue with a librarian, you'd better know your Dewey-Decimal system. If you're going to argue with an architect, you'd better know the difference between an arc-boutant and an ogival arch. If you're going to argue with a comic book geek, you'd damn well better know the difference between red and green kryptonite. And so it follows that if you're going to argue with a Christian, you'd better know the Bible, because they sure as ####### are going to know it. You're trying to put me in an impossible position--if I know the bible, you're calling me "subjective and biased." (I don't understand what you mean by this, by the way) And if I didn't know the Bible, you'd tell me that I don't know the bible so I can't possibly understand.

You made the verifiably false claim that Jesus refuted slavery. I know the Bible well enough to know that this is incorrect, and I can find multiple instances where Jesus either endorses slavery or ignores it outright. And I can definitely show (and have shown, look a couple posts up) that the god of the Bible not only endorses slavery, but sets up guidelines on how to do it. How is any of this subjective and biased? I even provided chapter and verse, which you have not done.

This notion that the Old Testament is obsoleted by the New Testament is also untrue within the context of the Bible. I've quoted already chapter and verse where Jesus plainly says that the old prophets and the old laws still apply, as well as chapter and verse where Jesus says that the word of god is not open to interpretation. There is nothing "subjective and biased" about this. It's all in black, white, and red.

If we had my 30-great grandfather's DNA, then yes, we could do that. And maybe this is where you're getting confused. This is a related but different area of DNA research. I'm not saying that some blood was drawn from a guy living on a reservation in Arizona and then we found his 30-great grandfather buried at 7521 Cemetery Road, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, thus proving migration across the Bering Strait. I'm saying that there are markers in the blood of American Indians that we can use to trace lineage conclusively. You're trying to come up with scenarios which falsify the results, and at the same time you're trying to claim that the research is flawed, so I really don't know where to take it from here. The evidence has been peer-reviewed and is accepted in the main stream scientific community. The research is out there, and there are no shortage of books that can explain even to the layman how this stuff works. But you're trying to debunk this science before you even know how it works. It's fine to be comfortable with your religion, but to paraphrase what I said earlier, if you're going to argue against science then you need to understand science first. I'm not a geneticist, but I am an engineer and have done a fair amount of work in research. I know a thing or two about the scientific method, and I can tell you that if it didn't work, you'd be sitting in front of a camp fire right now instead of a computer.

Having DNA from your 30-great grandfather would tell you where he was born? No it wouldn't. You have my DNA today, but it doesn't allow you to say where I was born. That's what I'm trying to say. You can look at someone's DNA but it provides you no record of where they were born, where they have lived, or where they live today.

I think you lost me. We don't have your 30-great grandfather's DNA. We don't have DNA from anyone from that era. But even if we did, it would not allow anyone to place them geographically. This is where your argument breaks down. You can use DNA to demonstrate that group A and group B are related, that they have a common ancestor. But DNA provides no way of telling where this ancestor lived.

There is no link between DNA and geography. Your DNA does not indicate where you grew up or where you ancestors grew up. You can combine DNA evidence with archaeology and knowledge of current population distributions to make educated postulates on where people migrated from and where the ancestors lived. But DNA is not linked to location.

[mox 298]

No, you've changed what I'm saying again. First the creation happened. Then, Noah survived the flood. Noah taught his children about the creation and various records were made or at least those present remembered what was said. These accounts survived but were changed and appeared in various cultures.

Later, Moses had a vision on Mount Sinai in which he was told the true, uncorrupted version of the creation story. He recorded it and for the most part it has survived to present day as Genesis. The similarity between the stories is due to the fact that they are both based on the true version of events.

I didn't change what you were saying, I was asking you to verify how I thought you were saying it. So ok, I think I understand you now. Creation happened, Noah taught his descendants but as time went by it got changed, and so the Babylonians got it completely wrong. Eventually the real story was re-revealed to Moses in a vision, and now that is the correct version.

But it doesn't explain why the Hebrews had to borrow from the Babylonians. Linguistic clues show that the Hebrew version borrowed freely from the Babylonian creation myth. The only way it doesn't make sense that the Hebrews co-opted the creation story is if god supernaturally altered the original Hebrew scripture to fool us.

Again, the explanations just don't jive with the observed world. We wouldn't have the evidence clearly showing the Hebrews copied the Babylonians. We would also have geological evidence of a great earth-covering mass-extinction flood. We do not. It's also empirically ridiculous that a 140(l) x 25(w) x 15(h) meter boat could contain every single surviving animal we see today. (fundamentalist Christians will tell you there were even dinosaurs in the ark!)

The bible and BoM are not science books. They were stories written down by men for whatever purpose, but if they were directed by god, then god is either insane, intentionally misleading, downright stupid, or evil. (strangely enough, an evil god is actually much more difficult for science to disprove) The books do not agree with the facts. They don't agree with what we've observed about the natural world. They don't even come close. And at least in the case of the Bible, modern Christians have conveniently ignored that Jesus and god tolerate and endorse slavery and other atrocities that put them right up there with Islam in terms of violent religions. If believing in a god gives you comfort, then ok. But trying to align it with science is a losing proposition.

[LvivLovers 39]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-turkey-arafat/

[mox 298]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-turkey-arafat/

They found Noah's ark again? How the heck do they keep losing that thing?

This bit was interesting:

The group claims that carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old, meaning they date to around the same time the ark was said to be afloat. Mt. Ararat has long been suspected as the final resting place of the craft by evangelicals and biblical literalists hoping to validate Biblical stories.

Yeung Wing-Cheung, from the Noah's Ark Ministries International research team that made the discovery, said: "It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it."

First, I thought young-earth Christians believe carbon dating is flawed. If carbon dating is flawed, doesn't it prove that this cannot possibly be the ark? (and if carbon dating *isn't* flawed, can we go back to using science again to disprove religious claims?)

Also...99.9% positive is an incredible degree of certainty. I'd love to know what it's based on. The scientific evidence must be overwhelming. I can't wait until they release all of their findings and tons more photographs than just some dude standing next to what could be ark timbers or could be some cabin in the mountains.

So hey, I'm gonna put my money where my mouth is...if an independent scientific team confirms that yes, this find is indeed a 135 meter long 23 meter wide, 14 meter tall ark that had at one time been filled with all of the land-dwelling animals living since 4,800 years ago, and survived a world-encompassing flood 4,800 years ago, I will become a believer. I will post a poll in this forum that will include Christianity, Mormonism Judaism, and Islam. (yes I know Mormonism is a subset of Christianity, but it's my poll) After 6 days (seems like a significant number), I will publicly renounce atheism and convert to the religion leading in the poll at the end of those 6 days. I'll even post photos of my baptism/ceremony.

Any religious people here willing to renounce their belief-system based on the outcome of this finding too? They are 99.9% positive!

[mox 298]

Sorry folks, I guess you won't have the opportunity to see me move to Riyadh or Salt Lake City to take on multiple wives. (I was kinda looking forward to collecting the whole set of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian brides, dammit!)

Turns out the Ark story is a hoax.

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2010/04/noahs-ark-paleobabble-update

Bets on if FOX News will issue a retraction? (I love that the original story was categorized as "Science and Technology.")

[LvivLovers 39]

Sorry folks, I guess you won't have the opportunity to see me move to Riyadh or Salt Lake City to take on multiple wives. (I was kinda looking forward to collecting the whole set of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian brides, dammit!)

Turns out the Ark story is a hoax.

http://michaelsheise...eobabble-update

Bets on if FOX News will issue a retraction? (I love that the original story was categorized as "Science and Technology.")

You're awful quick to jump on disproving it. What scientific proof do you have that this letter was written by the person it was attributed to or that this person was really a part of this expedition? I'm not saying whether it's a hoax or not, but for someone who claims to beleive in science, you seem pretty quick to embrace the first thing that supports your position of disbelief. I'll be interested to see your proof...

[mox 298]

You're awful quick to jump on disproving it. What scientific proof do you have that this letter was written by the person it was attributed to or that this person was really a part of this expedition? I'm not saying whether it's a hoax or not, but for someone who claims to beleive in science, you seem pretty quick to embrace the first thing that supports your position of disbelief. I'll be interested to see your proof...

Fair enough. On the other hand, what's the proof that this claim is legit? I've seen 2 photos: one of a man standing next to what could easily be the inside of a cabin, and another showing a plank of wood that looks old. The article even said they found compartments where animals could have been housed--where is this? Where is a wide-angle shot of the find? If there were any evidence at all, I'd be more careful in researching the claims. Unfortunately, throughout the history of ark finding, they've all been shown to be either inconclusive or outright hoaxes.

If I said I'd found evidence that some aspect of Christianity had been disproven, and then I showed you a couple photographs that could have been taken in any context, would you believe me? Why would you be so eager to believe these claims?

But hey, my offer still stands if this find is proven.