> > "Concern on" isn't grammatical, I assume you mean "concern with". Well, we > were discussing creation myths vs science, hence the concern. > It is grammatical in the same sense as "Senators Express Concern onReverse > Mortgage Rule > *s* [*not rule*] By RACHEL > ABRAMS<http://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/rachel-abrams/> New > York Times. *April 30, 2014, 4:00 *pm. "Concern with" usually implies > specificity on a particular myth. "Concern ABOUT" is what is meant by > "concern ON". > Hmm, OK, maybe it's an Americanism.
> 2. Is manufacturing something out of clay a myth? > > Not if it's a pot. (Although you are making a context error. A myth is a > story, making something is a process. Unless you are asking if telling or > inventing a story is like making a pot?) > How about manufacturing glass? Or Freak Family by Nataly Horev? > > No, manufacturing glass is not a myth and the Pope is still Catholic. I don't get the point of this point. > 3. Is there any non-clay mineral in human body? What is mythical about > it? > > I will leave this to my scientific colleagues. Does clay contain iron, > potassium, sodium, calcium for example? This is in any case a slightly > peculiar question, unless it's intended to point out that evolution > predicts that organisms will be made of the same components as inorganic > material (more or less) because what else is available? > Physics News. Latest physics and nanotechnology news headlines: > http://www.physnews.com/bio-medicine-news/cluster739382184/ > "Biological Engineers from Cornell University's department for Nanoscale > Science in New York state believe clay 'might have been the birthplace of > life on Earth'. > It is a theory dating back thousands of years in many cultures, though > perhaps not using the same scientific explanation. > > The last clause of the last sentence says it all. In the myths, it is because people saw an anlogy with pottery. In science it's because clay may have helped the evolution of RNA. > 4. How to justify piggy backing *factual* Natural Selection with > *fictional* Trans-speciation? > No idea what you mean here. Are you saying speciation doesn't occur? If > so, check up on those birds which demonstrate speciation as you follow them > around the world. I can't remember what they're called but the concept is > described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species > > No idea! You need not be blamed. The authoritarian (Marxist?) acade-media > has no clue either!! No Trans-speciation! > I have no idea what you mean. But speciation exists, demonstrably, as shown by ring species (and in other ways). > 5. Are there other *real *myths in other cultures? Not sure why the > emphasis on *real*. Do you mean myths which are in fact true, or just > ones which really are myths? If the latter, then obviously there are loads > of them. Google for "fire goddess" for example and you will get Pele, > Mahuika, and loads more. > Not sure. That is to be expected in the dumping down of America (and the > West) by the fanatic, intolerant, Bible-allergic acade-media! How about > these myths? Taken from http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html > Georgia > University. > 1. The Nordic Myth > Where the sparks and warm winds of Muspell reached the south side of > frigid Ginnungagap, the ice thawed and dripped, and from the drips > thickened and formed the shape of a man. His name was Ymir, the first of > and ancestor of the frost-giants. > > As the ice dripped more, it formed a cow, and from her teats flowed > four rivers of milk that fed Ymir. The cow fed on the salt of the rime ice, > and as she licked a man's head began to emerge. By the end of the third day > of her licking, the whole man had emerged, and his name was Buri. He had a > son named Bor, who married Bestla, a daughter of one of the giants. Bor and > Bestla had three sons, one of whom was Odin, the most powerful of the gods. > > 2. The Babylonian Myth: > > In the beginning, neither heaven nor earth had names. Apsu, the god of > fresh waters, and Tiamat, the goddess of the salt oceans, and Mummu, the > god of the mist that rises from both of them, were still mingled as one. > There were no mountans, there was no pasture land, and not even a > reed-marsh could be found to break the surface of the waters. > It was then that Apsu and Tiamat parented two gods, and then two > more who outgrew the first pair. These further parented gods, until Ea, who > was the god of rivers and was Tiamat and Apsu's geat-grandson, was born. Ea > was the cleverest of the gods, and with his magic Ea became the most > powerful of the gods, ruling even his forebears. > 3. East Indian Myth > S. Radhakrishnan, (editor and translator), 1953, The Principal Upanisads: > New York, Harper and Brothers Publishers, 958 p. (BL1120.E5 R2) In the > beginning there was absolutely nothing, and what existed was covered by > death and hunger. He thought, "Let me have a self", and he created the > mind. As he moved about in worship, water was generated. Froth formed on > the water, and the froth eventually solidifed to become earth. He rested on > the earth, and from his luminence came fire. After resting, he divided > himself in three parts, and one is fire, one is the sun, and one is the air. > Thus in the beginning the world was only his self, his being or > essence, which then took the shape of a person. At first he was afraid, but > realizing that he was alone and had nothing of which to be afraid, his fear > ceased. However, he had no happiness because he was alone, and he longed > for another. He grew as large as two persons embracing, and he caused his > self to split into two matching parts, like two halves of a split pea, and > from them arose husband and wife. > 4. From Encyclopedia Britannica > > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/142144/creation-myth/33939/Creation-from-the-cosmic-egg > A Japanese creation narrative likens the primordial chaos to an egg > containing the germs of creation. In the Hindu tradition the creation of > the world is symbolized in the Chandogya Upanishad by the breaking of an > egg, and the universe is referred to as an egg in other sources. The > Buddhists speak of the transcending of ordinary existence, the > realization of a new mode of being, as breaking the shell of the egg. > Similar references to creation through the symbol of the egg are found in > the Orphic texts of the Greeks and in Chinese myths. > > Yes, I've come across most of those. And? > 6. How do they compare with the Genesis record? > > How do what compare? Creation Myths? They all seem fairly similar. The > recipe seems to be - take features of the natural world (earth and sea, > night and day, etc) and explain them by having a god or gods do something a > person might do if they were making a miniature world. Some involve an > earth goddess giving birth to the land, or the sky god breathing fire into > the Sun, or whatever. For me, the key line in Genesis is "He made the > stars also" (I may not have that word for word, but it's something very > much like that). 14 billion years of cosmic history and a universe > containing trillions of galaxies don't get a mention, not a word. Only the > stars - that is, the few thousand we can actually see - rate a mention. For > me that sums up the fact that basically the process of creation myth > creation goes - look around, see what exists, and invent a story to explain > it that you can tell your kids. > > "Questions of difference.....and the ways in which those categorizations > inform and are informed by other discourses and practices are central to > scholarship in comparative studies". > http://comparativestudies.osu.edu/graduate > A "No question asked" politically correct authoritarian (Marxist?) > intolerant and fanatically biased acade-media controlled curriculum has no > place for "questions". So again, not your fault!! > No idea what you're talking about. Maybe you should attempt to explain your position in a standalone post rather than making - to me rather confusing - comments which allude to it. > > 7. What is the evidence of Trans-speciation via mutation? Besides > acade-media* Texts? No idea what this question means, unless it's a > repeat of question 4, which can be easily answered by observing the natural > world. > Again no fault of yours. Natural Selection is science. Piggybacking it > with Trans-speciation is non-evidential speculative philosophy. That is not > the way the acade-media controlled Texts present it. > > See above. I need you to present what you mean clearly enough that I understand it, then I will comment. > 8. What is the principal premise of Genesis? A puny little god/goddess? Or > Almighty? I imagine you know that one. It wasn't Amaterasu or Zeus or Ra > what done it, it was Jahweh, in the planetarium, with the candlestick. > Again, not your fault. The premise is "ALMIGHTY" which means exactly that. > You seem to be obsessed with fault. I have no idea what you are (or aren't) faulting me (or everyone) for. But anyway, yes the premise of Genesis is that the world was created by a single "Almighty". The great leap forward of Judaism was to amalgamate all the gods into one, which more or less by definition makes him "Almighty". > > 9. What is irrational about that premise? There is no evidence for it, > and there *is* evidence for a different process (although an evil or > trickster god could have planted that to fool us, of course). > > Again conflating conclusion with premise is not you fault. That is a > typical acade-media method. A corollary of Both/& illogic. Finite > Creation/Creature is not to be conflated with Infinite Creator/Almighty. So > what is irrational about the premise "Almighty"? Nothing. > And I'm conflating conclusion with premise how? The premise is evidence, the conclusion is what happened. E.g. the premise that the evidence of the CMBR indicates the occurence of the Big Bang. What is irrational about the premise "Almighty" ? I explained below. It isn't amenable to testing, and it tells us nothing because it still leaves the question of God's origin unanswered. (Also unanswered by you, I see...) > > But as an ontology it is unsatisfactory, pushing the question "why does > anything exist?" back to the question "why does god exist?" Pushing the > question back onto something considered infinitely complex doesn't really > tell us anything; pushing it back onto something simpler and more > fundamental may just do so. In other words it is not testable or > falsifiable (unless, as in "In the Year 2525", God decides to turn up) and > hence not amenable to scientific investigation. Well, except where specific > claims are made about the world that go beyond what could have been known > at the time. So any mention of the CMBR, or even the Earth orbiting the > Sun, would be good. I'm sure Samiya can dig out a few. > 10. What is a rational premise for atheism? Probability, I guess, > although personally I can only see a rational premise for agnosticism. > Chance/probability has no creative power. It is an *ex post facto > statistical NUMBER only. It has absolutely zero causal or creative power.* > You will have to explain that at considerably more length and depth to convince me, given that I've read "Climbing Mount Improbable". Chance as filtered through natural selection (or any form of selection) can be a very powerful causal or creative force, as any coder who has written a genetic algorithm or writer who has used the "cut up" method can tell you. Also you haven't answered my points about lack of testability, and the fact that holy texts have never predicted a scientific fact accurately apart from by shoe horning some vague statement. Or if they have I have yet to see it (Sam I am* may come up with some from the Quran, but I am not holding my breath). *Sorry Samiya I couldn't resist that little pun when I noticed your name's resemblance to a certain Dr Seuss character who refuses to take no for an answer despite being given mountains of evidence that he is wrong. Of course he turns out to be right! But then it is a book for kids :-) ** ** "Green eggs and ham" -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
