Disproving Genesis

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "Disproving Genesis" by Frenger.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/reason/disproving-genesis/

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Part of me wants to carry on, although I’ve already hit nearly 1000 words debunking only 2 sentences.

One thousand words for only two sentences.

That should just go to show anyone just how wrong Genesis truly is.

 

[Frenger]

In all fairness, the 1000 words did include a bra joke, but I defy you disprove Genesis without at least one.

Also, in the same way you have invited Juby, I've alerted Joseph to the existence of my attempt.

Hopefully we'll see him soon.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Also, in the same way you have invited Juby, I've alerted Joseph to the existence of my attempt.

Oh, I have not informed Juby of my blogs yet. I was going to wait until the last one is posted before I inform him of their existence. I would rather him see a finished product.

 

[Vivre]

Well, what an effort to disprove the literal meaning of a myth of origin.
Still I enjoyed reading it and like to leave some remarks.

- The face of the deep might have been in the dark in case there'd been an eclipse of the sun.

- as for your rather scientific quotations I would have liked to know what letter there is beween Pb ? Pb, but also the source doesn't display it to me.
Another letter is missing in: ( ? [sup]18[/sup]O). Here the original loads a picture for its diplay: >

< http://www.nature.com/__chars/delta/black/med/base/glyph.gif

- Just in case: I missed the source reference of the used bible text.
Just saying - 'cos if I'd translated my version to english it would come up differently. There's neither face nor deep in it and the earth was desert and confused ;-)

I wonder what you'll say when the light gets switched on ~ greets

 

[Frenger]

Well, what an effort to disprove the literal meaning of a myth of origin.
Still I enjoyed reading it and like to leave some remarks.

Hi Vivre!

You're right, this isn't the greatest challenge, but it's a challenge nonetheless, set by a man with a PHD don't you now

- The face of the deep might have been in the dark in case there'd been an eclipse of the sun.

Sorry, I'm a tad tired, could you say this bit again? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

- as for your rather scientific quotations I would have liked to know what letter there is beween Pb ? Pb, but also the source doesn't display it to me.
Another letter is missing in: ( ? [sup]18[/sup]O). Here the original loads a picture for its diplay: >

< http://www.nature.com/__chars/delta/black/med/base/glyph.gif

Cheers for that. I will try and find the original paper and add the parts which have been replaced. Also, in future posts I shall try and find a paper with all the notation present and correct.

- Just in case: I missed the source reference of the used bible text.
Just saying - 'cos if I'd translated my version to english it would come up differently. There's neither face nor deep in it and the earth was desert and confused ;-)

Ha, oops, I got so carried away with typing, I forgot to reference the bloody Bible I used. Yep, noted, that shall also be included in the next'un.

I wonder what you'll say when the light gets switched on ~ greets

"AHHH, NOT YET, I HAVEN'T PUT MY PANTS ON"

Or something similar.

 

[Vivre]

Hi Vivre!

You're right, this isn't the greatest challenge, but it's a challenge nonetheless, set by a man with a PHD don't you now

Yes I saw the preceded name decoration and rather assume its value is to impose impression.
[sarcasm]Someone who puts up such a challenge obviously lacks elementary education.[/sarcasm] :mrgreen:

- The face of the deep might have been in the dark in case there'd been an eclipse of the sun.

Sorry, I'm a tad tired, could you say this bit again? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

“Darkness was upon the face of the deep”. Well, according to the Nebular hypothesis, the Earth formed out of the solar nebula left over from the formation of the Sun. This would suggest then, that the Sun was producing light as a bi-product of nuclear fusion during Earth’s accretion, and therefore darkness would not be upon the face of the deep.

Even if the sun already existed the concerned/observed part 'the deep' could have been in the shadow due to an eclipse. I assume 'the deep' to be somewhere on the planet earth as nothing else is of existence at that moment which would allow a unit of distance.
My edition calls it 'Urflut' = 'primal flood'.

"AHHH, NOT YET, I HAVEN'T PUT MY PANTS ON"

Ok - may darkness embrace you as long it's at your pleasure ;-)