4 ms·

Taken literary its dumb for sure. However, its far from inconceivable - 7 days could actually be 7*10^n something and intelligent design was proven to be possi

Taken literary its dumb for sure. However, its far from inconceivable - 7 days could actually be 7*10^n something and intelligent design was proven to be possible (we humans created live viruses in a lab from raw materials as one example, almost 20 years ago). Simulation theory (i.e. Matrix) is another possible option. It even has highest probability to be true.

29athrowaway 6y ago
The amount of time is not only the problem. The timeline of events described for each day doesn't add up, and the time scale changes very randomly. For the biblical creation narrative to be compatible with evidence, most of the creation should have been astronomical events and then life should have only appeared at the end of the week. However, in the bible the last day is spent resting.
- dvt 6y ago
  I think the main thrust of the argument is that we were created, not necessarily the peculiar details found in Genesis. It's odd to focus on specifics of a religious text written millennia ago.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - scalablenotions 6y ago
    It's not that odd, when it's reasonable to imagine that an intelligence which creates life would communicate with that life. Genesis and the rest of Judeo-Christian scripture are a compelling candidate for an externally facilitated communiqué, because of their unlikely history, outstanding philology and uncanny foresight
    - dvt 6y ago
      Imo, there's a very big difference between the creation story found in the Pentateuch and Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. As a Christian I, of course, believe both, but I think that the details of the former are much fuzzier than the latter. So questions like "did God really spend 6 days making the Universe?" are theological red herrings. The point of the Bible is to be reconciled with God through accepting Christ as the one Son of God that died for our sins, was resurrected three days later, and ascended to Heaven. The details of Genesis are certainly interesting theologically, but vigorous debate on them (was God describing evolution? does one day represent a billion years?) isn't particularly interesting spiritually, nor does it really help me reconcile my fallen and sinful nature.
      - nendroid 6y ago
        So your solution is to fulfill yourself spiritually rather than question the veracity of what you're taught? You desire to reconcile your fallen and sinful nature but your interest is only theological meaning that inconsistent details which may indicate that the documents are completely false are irrelevant because it isn't interesting spiritually. As a christian my self, the internal and external consistency of the stories matter because a single inconsistency means that I am using a false document to feed my soul polluting it with illusions and lies. If the bible really is a made up document and I've been delusion-ally feeding myself lies for years I would need to stop immediately. I only want only the truth, you should too. The other thing is, you need to stay unbiased during this "trial of faith." If someone presents to you information that actually definitively proves the bible to be untrue then you must be unbiased and change your conclusions logically on the fly. So far no one has yet presented me with such information and I remain christian at heart.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  Well yeah, Genesis is obvious poetry. But that's an entirely different domain of expertise than biology and drives at an entirely different point than the posted article. Attempting to conflate the two seems contrived. It's fine to have an axe to grind, but let that motivate you to seek more (and cut down less).
  - majkinetor 6y ago
    Poetry has bits of truth in it too.
    - ultrarunner 6y ago
      Very much so, yes. My only point is that treating a poem as a recipe should not be expected to be terribly productive :)
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Simulation theory and intelligent design are equivalent. The alternative is meaningless randomness.
- majkinetor 6y ago
  They are not equivalent. Simulation is one variant of iD.
rsynnott 6y ago
> intelligent design was proven to be possible (we humans created live viruses in a lab from raw materials as one example, almost 20 years ago). At that point you’re just kicking the can down the road; where’d the designer come from?
- jedimind 6y ago
  If everything has to come from somewhere, then the first cause of all other things must be an uncaused thing, otherwise we have an infinite recursion of things and thus nothing existing at all.
  - nullsense 6y ago
    I reckon it's just an infinite recursion and that we don't really exist. I mean think about it this way - the combined probability of everything happening as it did to lead up to you being exactly who you are is so astronomically small. If something was that unlikely to happen then maybe it didn't.
    - majkinetor 6y ago
      That is not how probability works. Most improbable things happen, like you being hit by failing airplane, or bacteria surviving inside predator bacteria. It only needs to happen once.
- majkinetor 6y ago
  Depends on the question. If we talk about origin of life as we know it, you don't have to go recursive really .
nendroid 6y ago
Taken symbolically it's also dumb. How can it not be? This is a ancient document written to be taken as truth yet the writer decides instead of just writing everything out plainly decides to make everything cryptic and to be taken not literally. The writer was so dumb that instead of writing 7*10^n days which he CLEARLY knew he instead wrote 7 days and fooled a bunch of people. It goes to show that even god isn't perfect and probably accidentally picked someone who didn't have much going on upstairs if you catch my drift. My buddy told me that all of this stuff is just excuses people make to reconcile the science and reality with the fact that they've been worshipping an ancient misguided document for most of their lives. I told him he better wise up because that kind of thinking leads to getting burned in hell. No guys it's just that sometimes god chooses a vessel to convey his information and that vessel is sometimes not too bright. That's all.

29athrowaway 6y ago

The amount of time is not only the problem. The timeline of events described for each day doesn't add up, and the time scale changes very randomly. For the biblical creation narrative to be compatible with evidence, most of the creation should have been astronomical events and then life should have only appeared at the end of the week. However, in the bible the last day is spent resting.

dvt 6y ago
I think the main thrust of the argument is that we were created, not necessarily the peculiar details found in Genesis. It's odd to focus on specifics of a religious text written millennia ago.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- scalablenotions 6y ago
  It's not that odd, when it's reasonable to imagine that an intelligence which creates life would communicate with that life. Genesis and the rest of Judeo-Christian scripture are a compelling candidate for an externally facilitated communiqué, because of their unlikely history, outstanding philology and uncanny foresight
  - dvt 6y ago
    Imo, there's a very big difference between the creation story found in the Pentateuch and Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. As a Christian I, of course, believe both, but I think that the details of the former are much fuzzier than the latter. So questions like "did God really spend 6 days making the Universe?" are theological red herrings. The point of the Bible is to be reconciled with God through accepting Christ as the one Son of God that died for our sins, was resurrected three days later, and ascended to Heaven. The details of Genesis are certainly interesting theologically, but vigorous debate on them (was God describing evolution? does one day represent a billion years?) isn't particularly interesting spiritually, nor does it really help me reconcile my fallen and sinful nature.
    - nendroid 6y ago
      So your solution is to fulfill yourself spiritually rather than question the veracity of what you're taught? You desire to reconcile your fallen and sinful nature but your interest is only theological meaning that inconsistent details which may indicate that the documents are completely false are irrelevant because it isn't interesting spiritually. As a christian my self, the internal and external consistency of the stories matter because a single inconsistency means that I am using a false document to feed my soul polluting it with illusions and lies. If the bible really is a made up document and I've been delusion-ally feeding myself lies for years I would need to stop immediately. I only want only the truth, you should too. The other thing is, you need to stay unbiased during this "trial of faith." If someone presents to you information that actually definitively proves the bible to be untrue then you must be unbiased and change your conclusions logically on the fly. So far no one has yet presented me with such information and I remain christian at heart.
ultrarunner 6y ago
Well yeah, Genesis is obvious poetry. But that's an entirely different domain of expertise than biology and drives at an entirely different point than the posted article. Attempting to conflate the two seems contrived. It's fine to have an axe to grind, but let that motivate you to seek more (and cut down less).
- majkinetor 6y ago
  Poetry has bits of truth in it too.
  - ultrarunner 6y ago
    Very much so, yes. My only point is that treating a poem as a recipe should not be expected to be terribly productive :)

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Simulation theory and intelligent design are equivalent. The alternative is meaningless randomness.

majkinetor 6y ago
They are not equivalent. Simulation is one variant of iD.

rsynnott 6y ago

> intelligent design was proven to be possible (we humans created live viruses in a lab from raw materials as one example, almost 20 years ago). At that point you’re just kicking the can down the road; where’d the designer come from?

jedimind 6y ago
If everything has to come from somewhere, then the first cause of all other things must be an uncaused thing, otherwise we have an infinite recursion of things and thus nothing existing at all.
- nullsense 6y ago
  I reckon it's just an infinite recursion and that we don't really exist. I mean think about it this way - the combined probability of everything happening as it did to lead up to you being exactly who you are is so astronomically small. If something was that unlikely to happen then maybe it didn't.
  - majkinetor 6y ago
    That is not how probability works. Most improbable things happen, like you being hit by failing airplane, or bacteria surviving inside predator bacteria. It only needs to happen once.
majkinetor 6y ago
Depends on the question. If we talk about origin of life as we know it, you don't have to go recursive really .

nendroid 6y ago

Taken symbolically it's also dumb. How can it not be? This is a ancient document written to be taken as truth yet the writer decides instead of just writing everything out plainly decides to make everything cryptic and to be taken not literally. The writer was so dumb that instead of writing 7*10^n days which he CLEARLY knew he instead wrote 7 days and fooled a bunch of people. It goes to show that even god isn't perfect and probably accidentally picked someone who didn't have much going on upstairs if you catch my drift. My buddy told me that all of this stuff is just excuses people make to reconcile the science and reality with the fact that they've been worshipping an ancient misguided document for most of their lives. I told him he better wise up because that kind of thinking leads to getting burned in hell. No guys it's just that sometimes god chooses a vessel to convey his information and that vessel is sometimes not too bright. That's all.