ancient man

[Derc]

How the hell did you people manage to derail a nail clipping thread into bible + ISIS stuff so fast? Now I'm even more afraid of age.

[basics]

How the hell did you people manage to derail a nail clipping thread into bible + ISIS stuff so fast? Now I'm even more afraid of age.

Derc,

Knowing the problems that toe and fingernails can cause my question was that if ancient man had no tools how did he keep this growth under control? There are two models here, one the Darwinian and two, the Biblical. The first poses great questions and obstacles but the second great answers. Hence the derailment you seem to see. Concerning age one really has only one question to fear and that's where you go after death.

[Derc]

This thread answers it already, doesn't it? It is all solved by a simple question:
"Do you still have to clip your nails over there?"
If yes -> Hell
If no -> Paradise

[basics]

Derc,

We'll know the answer to that when we get over there.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

It's amazing how early handling of nails became an anti-science narrative when the very inefficiency of how nails work seems like evidence that nails were made at best as a chronic inconvenience, at worst a design of malice should they be left alone. And how it's gobbled up rather easily with the right worldview.

The presentation of 'great answers' is in fact 'simple answers', and I suppose this is the historic appeal of religion. It takes little to no thought to consume, and the gaps can be contrived into miracles and other things with very little thought to them. It is simpler to exist with an easy answer than pry for an explanation based on the behavior of the world itself and all the things within it, which naturally make science a difficult field when it is an attempt to answer as much as possible without embedding into convenient gimmicks (else, the process of science is made unscientific by definition). The answer would be trying to further discover an explanation, perhaps making a few online queries and presenting a case from them so as to find a logical solution that doesn't throw out logic itself in favor of convenient 'it was just made that way'. But again, easier to just bog down in the simple answer, dig in and be comforted by not needing to explore reality further.

Really quite fascinating. I'm not motivated to do the above search that I'm sure others have done before, but perhaps with enough interest it could be done. But there is no arguing with simplistic narrative when it is literally the difference between an endless quest to understand a near infinite system vs saying the macguffin did it and never having to really think about it again.

[conon394]

Knowing the problems that toe and fingernails can cause my question was that if ancient man had no tools how did he keep this growth under control? There are two models here, one the Darwinian and two, the Biblical. The first poses great questions and obstacles but the second great answers. Hence the derailment you seem to see. Concerning age one really has only one question to fear and that's where you go after death.

What problems. Do wild mustangs need farriers on speed dial to trim their hoofs? The simple fact is basics in world without gloves or shoes and constant manual labor you are not going to have 15 inch fingernails and you be happy they keep growing as you wear them down or break them. You ask the same question of why you get pointless wisdom teeth that most people end up getting pulled in the the modern world. Because before agriculture and when you were grinding down seeds directly in you mouth a few new late teeth were sort useful. Not so much anymore when you having fish and chips and a bitter at the pub.

-------------

t's amazing how early handling of nails became an anti-science narrative when the very inefficiency of how nails work seems like evidence that nails were made at best as a chronic inconvenience, at worst a design of malice should they be left alone. And how it's gobbled up rather easily with the right worldview.

The OP is is incorrect however in asserting nails work inefficiently. They well enough in general. That they are not always aesthetically pleasing in the modern world is a very different argument.

------------

conon394,

God created the earth and its surrounds only some six thousand plus years ago in six literal days. He made it an up and running system and so since He was there and no scientists were it follows that whatever science thinks it knows about creation it cannot prove God to be wrong.

Exactly again how do you get the 6000 year date anyway.

[Akar]

Someone counted up all the genealogies in the bible and it's something like 6000 years so that's how old they think the earth is, lmao.

[conon394]

Someone counted up all the genealogies in the bible and it's something like 6000 years so that's how old they think the earth is, lmao.

Oh I know that but of course that count varies from ~6000 to over ~10,000 (or more) depending on the counter. Also of course it explicitly accepts fantasy level longevity for the early bit of the bible with no particular explanation as to why that stoppped

[basics]

conon394,

The long life of early man was down to the water layer that God set above the earth for two reasons. One, it ensured population growth because the sun could not affect us and two, that layer was in place for the flood of Noah that was to come. After the flood the lifespan of man dropped from the thousand to the hundreds and then to the three score and ten.

[conon394]

You know that is made up fan service to explain away perfect nonsense in the Old Testament. about as logical as Star Wars fans trying make Han Solo's parsecs Kessel Run silly line actually not be well silly.
Your external proof for this canard? What is the internal logic of your fantasy here how is the sun affecting us?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

If the Sun couldn't affect humans, why could the photosynthesis in plants work?

How do they grow without direct sunlight exponation?

Can you cite, where in the bible is talked about two layers of water making men older?

What is not in the Bible, is not true.^^

[Sir Adrian]

so that's how old they think the earth is, lmao.

That's actually a 19th century heresy that started in, drum roll, the midwestern US. But yeah someone did calculate that. His name was Dennis the Short, one of the first romanian saints, and inventor of the BC/AD system we use today. He was also kind of bad at math. It's believed he miscalculated Jesus birth by +-6 years.

[conon394]

If the Sun couldn't affect humans, why could the photosynthesis in plants work?

How do they grow without direct sunlight exponation?

Can you cite, where in the bible is talked about two layers of water making men older?

What is not in the Bible, is not true.^^

Thanks you really took my potential counter post with that. If everything was created as is from the start than plants should either not survive now too much energy in the system or was there a missing passage about god altering plants during the flood.

[basics]

If the Sun couldn't affect humans, why could the photosynthesis in plants work?
How do they grow without direct sunlight exponation?
Can you cite, where in the bible is talked about two layers of water making men older?
What is not in the Bible, is not true.^^

Morticia lunia Bruti,

Well, in cloudy days do plants stop growing? The firmament above didn't stop a certain amount of heat getting through because we read that in the garden a mist rose up from the ground meaning heat causes that and so plants did what plants do.

Now concerning man's age at that time it reached to the thousand yet after the flood man's age dropped to the hundreds so the effect of the firmament was obvious to the enquiring mind. And so as direct sunlight became the norm it affected the age of man to drop to around the three score and ten.

If it is in direct contradiction to the Bible it certainly is not true.

[Akar]

The long life of early man was down to the water layer that God set above the earth for two reasons. One, it ensured population growth because the sun could not affect us

You realize that would actually be a bad thing for humanity and the earth, not a good thing right? Are you unfamiliar with what happens when a large amount of particulates are in the atmosphere blocking sunlight?

Now concerning man's age at that time it reached to the thousand yet after the flood man's age dropped to the hundreds so the effect of the firmament was obvious to the enquiring mind. And so as direct sunlight became the norm it affected the age of man to drop to around the three score and ten.

Scientific sources for these claims?

If it is in direct contradiction to the Bible it certainly is not true.

And this is why everything you argue will always be in bad faith.

You know that is made up fan service to explain away perfect nonsense in the Old Testament. about as logical as Star Wars fans trying make Han Solo's parsecs Kessel Run silly line actually not be well silly.

Yeah, no.

Kessel is surrounded by a load of black holes and other dangerous anomalies that make a direct hyperspace route to it dangerous. Due to the load of dangerous stuff around the Kessel system it's almost impossible to plot a straight line course to it from anywhere else in the galaxy, which means that numerous small hyperspace jumps are required to circumnavigate the obstacles. The typical hyperspace route is much longer than the one Han made it in since he and Chewie manually plotted their own courses there. In a universe where hyperspace lanes exist it's entirely logical to brag about going from one point to another in a much shorter distance than anyone else has been able to safely do it, and even more impressive to do it on the fly like Han did. The concept of hyperspace lanes was introduced not by the fans or the extended universe, but by George Lucas himself, by the way.

Basically, the line is only silly if you watched A New Hope half asleep.
tl:dr, fight me conon

[Prodromos]

That's actually a 19th century heresy that started in, drum roll, the midwestern US. But yeah someone did calculate that. His name was Dennis the Short, one of the first romanian saints, and inventor of the BC/AD system we use today. He was also kind of bad at math. It's believed he miscalculated Jesus birth by +-6 years.

If young-earth creationism was the view of a sixth-century Romanian saint then that kind of goes against the claim that it's a heretical view or a 19th-century American invention. As far as I know, YEC was the predominant view among Christians throughout history. The idea that the world is eternal or has existed for more than 10,000 years was generally viewed as a pagan belief.

Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (AD 169–177)

“All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days … . For if even a chronological error has been committed by us, of, e.g., 50 or 100, or even 200 years, yet not of thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books.”

Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430)

“Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been … . They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents, which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.”

Zacharias Ursinus (AD 1534–1583), a German Reformed theologian who served as the primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, similarly embraced a young earth view. In his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, he wrote in 1616, “According to the common reckoning, it is now, counting from this 1616 of Christ, 5534 years since the creation of the world.” He then cites Melanchthon who would have believed that the world in 1616 would have been 5,579 years; Luther, 5,576 years; the Genevan theologians, 5,559 years; and Beroaldus, 5,545 years. After consulting these theologians, Ursinus concludes “that the world was created by God at least not much over 5,559 or 5,579 years.”

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Hmm, should i believe a man, who has claimed the earth is flat?

While Henry Wace praises this work by Theophilus, most critics such as Henry Chadwick or Donaldson consider it to be rather mediocre. Objectionable are obviously wrong etymological derivations of Theophilus, for example when he wants to see a reference to Eva in the Bacchanal call "Evoe", but also his view that the earth is flat and that he accepts the assumption of the spherical shape of the earth by Greek philosophers whose errors are calculated. His exegesis, too, is based on arbitrary allegories that lack any system.

https://de.zxc.wiki/wiki/Theophilus_(Antiochia)

I guess not.

And related to Augustine:

In City of God, Augustine rejected both the contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church's sacred writings.^[123] In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis Augustine argued God had created everything in the universe simultaneously and not over a period of six days. He argued the six-day structure of creation presented in the Book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way – it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omnia simul ("He created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literalistically.^[124] As an additional support for describing the six days of creation as a heuristic device, Augustine thought the actual event of creation would be incomprehensible by humans and therefore needed to be translated.^[125]

Augustine took the view that, if a literal interpretation contradicts science and humans' God-given reason, the Biblical text should be interpreted metaphorically. While each passage of Scripture has a literal sense, this "literal sense" does not always mean the Scriptures are mere history; at times they are rather an extended metaphor.^[135]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August...interpretation

Sorry, if Augustine would live today, he would reject Young Creationsm as contradicting science and human's god-given reason.

[Prodromos]

Hmm, should i believe a man, who has claimed the earth is flat?

The purpose of my post wasn't to demonstrate the truth of young-earth creationism, but to show that YEC is not a modern or novel idea. It was, in fact, the default position throughout Christian history and the dominant understanding among the most learned Christian theologians.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The idea of a young earth was dead from 1830 onwards:

Hutton's ideas, called uniformitarianism or gradualism, were popularized by Sir Charles Lyell in the early 19th century. The energetic advocacy and rhetoric of Lyell led to the public and scientific communities largely accepting an ancient Earth. By this time, the Reverends William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and other early geologists had abandoned their earlier ideas of catastrophism related to a biblical flood and confined their explanations to local floods. By the 1830s, the scientific consensus had abandoned a young Earth as a serious hypothesis.^[31][32]

It was revived by US fundamentalist christians in the beginning of the 20th century:

The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century brought rejection of evolution. Its leaders explained an ancient Earth through belief in the gap or in the day-age interpretation of Genesis.[37] In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist, wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great Flood on the shape of the Earth. Although not an accredited geologist, Price's writings, which were based on reading geological texts and documents rather than field or laboratory work,[38] provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book attracted a small following, with its advocates almost all being Lutheran pastors and Seventh-day Adventists in North America.[39] Price became popular with fundamentalists for his opposition to evolution, though they continued to believe in an ancient Earth.[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Biblical_dates_for_creation


It played also no major role in the Roman Catholic Church before but instead in Protestantism because of its "Only Scripture" Principle.

[Prodromos]

The idea of a young earth was dead from 1830 onwards:

It was revived by US fundamentalist christians in the beginning of the 20th century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Biblical_dates_for_creation


It played also no major role in the Roman Catholic Church before but instead in Protestantism because of its "Only Scripture" Principle.

The popularity of particular doctrines waxes and wanes with the times, but it's disingenuous to portray young-earth creationism as an innovative position when it's been continuously held by Christians since the time of the early church. If YEC has been 'revived' in the context of the modernist-fundamentalist debate, it's in the same way that doctrines like the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, justification by faith alone and the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement have been revived, i.e. as a defense of historic orthodoxy, not as new doctrines invented out of thin air.