6 day creation story, ancient Egyptian mythology:

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
RJ, you are on fire! Ten of the eleven most recent posts in the Spirituality Forum are yours.

If you don't have an hour available, concentrate on 43 min. to 53 min. in this lecture by agnostic scientist Lawrence Krauss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

You are right. I don't have much time right now, so I will check it out later, if I don't forget.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you think the Upper Egyptian story is NOT part of the creation myth. Please don't tell me you believe it is true and not a myth. You can't be serious.

I mean that I've read it before and it was not linked to a creation story. I think the various myths developed over the millennia. The myth is linked to the flooding of the Nile, the Nile would run red with silt and cover the land, during heavy floods human lives would be at risk. So in the poetic sense the myth is true.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I mean that I've read it before and it was not linked to a creation story. I think the various myths developed over the millennia. The myth is linked to the flooding of the Nile, the Nile would run red with silt and cover the land, during heavy floods human lives would be at risk. So in the poetic sense the myth is true.

Well, this time it was. Check the referenced source. It is all nonsense to me.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
RJ, you are on fire! Ten of the eleven most recent posts in the Spirituality Forum are yours.

If you don't have an hour available, concentrate on 43 min. to 53 min. in this lecture by agnostic scientist Lawrence Krauss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

Lawrence Krauss is somewhat of a weird guy. I did not remember the name until I saw him on the video, but I have seen him before in a debate with Dr. Craig. He reminds me of what sonhouse must be like, sort of willing ignorant and proud of it, while thinking he is wise.

To his colleges in science he claims they KNOW the answers. But in his debates he says he is not sure of anything and he does NOT BELIEVE anything as an atheist and a scientist, and that he can only say from the evidence that the conclusions the he and his scientist buddies make is more probable than those made from any religion. He seems to associate the words "believe" and "faith" not with science, but only with what religious people speak of having.

In this video he seems to be concerned with informing us of how he KNOWS with accuracy that the universe is 13.72 billion years old now and how he KNOWS there is a lot of dark matter or something that does not shine out there that can't be seen.

He seems to think they now have evidence that the universe came into being from nothing by the Big Bang. However, his definition of nothing is not exactly nothing, but something that keeps popping in and out of existence. That was my understanding of what I can remember him saying. I may not have that exactly right, but it sounded like something weird and maybe even supernatural to me.

He seems to thing our universe had to come into existence for some reason that I did not really understand. He mentions something about the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology playing a part for the existence of our world, but did not explain how and when (before or after the Big Bang) they came into existence.

Do you have a question for me about what he said?

Originally posted by RJHinds
He seems to thing our universe had to come into existence for some reason that I did not really understand. He mentions something about the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology playing a part for the existence of our world, but did not explain how and when (before or after the Big Bang) they came into existence.

The cause of the Universe is not dependent on Man's knowledge.

Gravity worked for cavemen ... they did not have to explain it!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The cause of the Universe is not dependent on Man's knowledge.

Gravity worked for cavemen ... they did not have to explain it!

Oh is that so? Well, I guess no one should complain when I just say God did it, right?

I remember one caveman from the Bible that said God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone and turned his wife into a pillar of salt because she looked back. That is a little more explanation that just God did it though.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Oh is that so? Well, I guess no one should complain when I just say God did it, right?

I remember one caveman from the Bible that said God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone and turned his wife into a pillar of salt because she looked back. That is a little more explanation that just God did it though.

And there is this distinct possibility the whole story is just another apocryphal tale designed to control people. Like the flood story. Not a real event, just a tale designed to control people.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And there is this distinct possibility the whole story is just another apocryphal tale designed to control people. Like the flood story. Not a real event, just a tale designed to control people.

There is also the possibility that you are trying to control people by making up a religion, in which you are your own god. Or there is the possiblity that the atheist humanist religion was devised to control people. Or there is the possibilty that Jesus was not trying to control people, but to set people free.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Lawrence Krauss is somewhat of a weird guy...
Do you have a question for me about what he said?

He says mainstream science can estimate the age of the universe to four significant figures. What do you say the age is, and how many significant figures can you take it out to?

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
He says mainstream science can estimate the age of the universe to four significant figures. What do you say the age is, and how many significant figures can you take it out to?

His claims to KNOW. He actually just BELIEVES he knows. My estimate only has four figures total. That is about 6000 years, maybe a closer estimate is 5975 Years. But I KNOW that I don't KNOW, I just BELIEVE.

Originally posted by RJHinds
His claims to KNOW. He actually just BELIEVES he knows. My estimate only has four figures total. That is about 6000 years, maybe a closer estimate is 5975 Years. But I KNOW that I don't KNOW, I just BELIEVE.

6K years in spite of all the arguments I and other have given you as to how ridiculous that # is. A flood that lasts a couple of months would not be able to carve out the Grand Canyon but more importantly, in the Grand Canyon there are layers WAY below the canyon itself, totally untouched yet miles deep showing layers that could not possibly have gotten there in 6K years. In spite of all that you just ignore the real world and insist on your fantasy world.

Originally posted by sonhouse
6K years in spite of all the arguments I and other have given you as to how ridiculous that # is. A flood that lasts a couple of months would not be able to carve out the Grand Canyon but more importantly, in the Grand Canyon there are layers WAY below the canyon itself, totally untouched yet miles deep showing layers that could not possibly have gotten the ...[text shortened]... 6K years. In spite of all that you just ignore the real world and insist on your fantasy world.

Nonsense. There is no evidence of anything that could not have happen by catastrophies that have occurred within 6000 years. The forming of that little grand canyon after the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruptions took less than three days to form by water and mud flow.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Nonsense. There is no evidence of anything that could not have happen by catastrophies that have occurred within 6000 years. The forming of that little grand canyon after the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruptions took less than three days to form by water and mud flow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0pua3nFotQ

And that's what it ended with, muddy flow. Not rocks bent at 180 degree angles. Sorry, Mount St. Helen doesn't work as a creationist model, much as you would love to shoehorn your bogus data into it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And that's what it ended with, muddy flow. Not rocks bent at 180 degree angles. Sorry, Mount St. Helen doesn't work as a creationist model, much as you would love to shoehorn your bogus data into it.

Bent at 180 degrees? Are you trying to be the comedian now?
😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
Bent at 180 degrees? Are you trying to be the comedian now?
😀

You really need to get out more:

http://saturniancosmology.org/files/geology/Sect2_1a_files/1561965140_66cda99463.jpg

This did not come from a volcano. This formation came from rock that was heated to plasticity and bent under tremendous pressure deep in the Earth and thrust back up by the incredible forces of crashing continents.

Here is another. There are literally thousands of photos like this. Like I said, you need to get out more. The world is more wonderful than you put it.

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/recumbent-fold.jpg

Looks pretty much like a 180 degree bend to me.