Monday, November 16, 2015

... on Two Responses from AronRa's Followers

I sent AronRa a mail about quite another subject, and got no answer, if none arrives by tomorrow, I'll publish it unanswered. Meanwhile I started getting answers from some of his followers in the youtube comments.

Update next day: I found a message under the youtube comments from AronRa, and he seems not to have got my mails. I sent him three mails again - the one I thought of yesterday while writing above, its PS, on historicity of Gospels and related, plus an earlier one on C14. I also told him which email adress to look out for and to have it on his green list. For correspondence, it is for now./HGL

[Update, now is no longer a mail provider, I use - without claiming a doctor title, just because was taken.]

Late coming comments
under threads on AronRa's videos


Marilyn Newman
+Hans-Georg Lundahl What has evolution got to do with fairy tales? Fairy tales are their own problem. when they don't make a lick of sense. Like the guy climbing Rapunzel's hair. I lost my faith in the bible when I read it at 9. Cain not only killed Abel, he killed any possibility of my believing any of it. I mean, after he killed Abel, there was only him, his 2 parents. so who was the woman of NOD he had sex with?

And there are others.

Gen 1 26 God creates the animals 27 God creates Adam & Eve.

Gen 2 7 God forgets he did this 2 days ago. God makes Adam out of dust

20 God creates animals & tries to get Adam to get it on with them, but for some strange reason Adam is not cooperating.

21 So God rips a rib out of Adam to make Eve. I guess he ran out of dust? How did he run out of dust? I clean my house, I never run out of dust?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Marilyn Newman It is funny that age 9, when you STOP believing in the Bible is exactly the age at which I STARTED believing it.

"Cain not only killed Abel, he killed any possibility of my believing any of it. I mean, after he killed Abel, there was only him, his 2 parents."

No. His siblings had not been mentioned yet in the text, but that does not mean they were not yet around in the order of events.

ANY series of events is a selection of all events happening during that time, and if you want to take in two parallel strands, the point is one way of doing that is going back a bit in time.

You are NOT a great reader if that hasn't occurred to you.

Prince Caspian, several ones in Arabian Nights, every break between books in Lord of the Rings, except the first two (note, books, not volumes : there are three volumes but the work is divided in six books, which give five breaks between books, where three illustrate my point) PLUS some other breaks within books III and V. The fact that these stories are fiction does not mean this is not a valid technique for telling things, even in non-fictitious contexts.

With this in mind; take a look at this passage:

Genesis 5: [3] And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. [4] And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters. [5] And all the time that Adam lived came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

Ah, yes.

  • 1) Cain and Abel probably already had siblings before the killing. It's just that the killing is told in chapter 4, and the Cain and Cainite chronicle follows, and the birth of these siblings is not told until chapter 5.

  • 2) Even supposing that Seth was only the third child, rather than a specially appointed heir of Adam and ancestor of Noah, the sister whom Cain married could have been born "in chapter five" and the marriage still have been told "in chapter four". This would of course involve Cain waiting quite a few years before getting a wife, after the murder, but we are not told in chapter 4 how long it took between murder and founding of Nod.

EITHER WAY the problem with telling the story is that at least two strands are told which unfold in parallel in the events, and therefore the simplest way of telling each in a fairly straight way (they do not intermingle extremely) is to tell each to the end separately before telling the other from the beginning separately.

So, Cain married a sister (which was not yet sinful and would not yet have involved any risk of perpetrating mutations, since they aren't any, except becoming mortal) or possibly a niece.

No problem of credibility involved at all.

That said, at age 9 it was the NT which I started reading, before getting to the OT.

Creating Eve out of Adam's rib obviously means ultimately creating her from dust if Adam was created from dust. Chapter 1 gives the big panorama, chapter 2 gives details from day 6.

As for animals created after Adam, there are two possible answers.

DRBO has Genesis 2: [19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.

That is, he had already created them before bringing them to Adam, but it is the bringing of them to Adam which happens after Adam was created.

Other possibility, he created an extra sample of each kind before the eyes of Adam so Adam could witness God creating them.

"God creates animals & tries to get Adam to get it on with them, but for some strange reason Adam is not cooperating."

No, God is TESTING the good sense of Adam, and that he HAD.

Probably Satan had already fallen and this because of honours God was going to bestow on Adam (like a Son of Man, Jesus Christ, being King of Angels, or like the Lady His Virgin Mother being Queen of Angels), Satan had said sth about Adam being "just an animal" and not being able to pass that test, and pass it he did. But this last part is just speculation. And one might add "fallen or starting to fall".

Now, exactly HOW many times are you going to say these problems over and over again, even if Christians (those faithful to Bible at any rate), give you same and functioning answers over and over again?


Soren G
"behemoth like"...really? well,thankfully,you neither write biology nor history books....we leave that to people,who actually know what they are doing.. besides:"Mokele-Mbeme" was a hoax...just to let you´s as credible as Nessie...oh,speaking of: where do you put Nessie than...LOL

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nessie, if real, would be sth like a Plesiosaur.

If Mokele-Mbembe has been "admitted as a hoax" (actually it would be possible to do it if someone had previously informed villagers of Diplodocus and these decided to see how gullible white men were), where can I find the admission.

I did find an exploring trip done, largely, in vain.

And what about this dino:

Palaeocritti Blog : Jobaria tiguidensis

Meaning of generic name Jobar-, Jobar (Tamacheck); -ia, pertaining to (Greek). Named after the mythical creature Jobar, to whom local Touregs had attributed the exposed bones.

As I commented under copy of this part of article:

[Meaning they thought people had seen Jobarias, how do we know they were wrong?]

Soren G
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

so what? I don´t get your point here.....

first:Moklele-Mbeme is just as Nessie a has never been found,nor a trace of evidence has been provided for it´s has however,been claimed by answersingenesis (I think),that it does exist and that eye witness reports and footprints etc have been found....underlined was it with a drawing,from a "scientific source" course was the "scientific" source a creationist couple,you drew it from their imagination......

so,the other dinosaur is pretty clean cut too....they found the fossil of a large,but not really unexpected....ever heard of pangea? the supercontinent? that was pretty much the time,when those huge sauropods were around....they basically roamed the whole world....nothing new...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) What you say about Mokele Mbembe does not imply positive evidence of a hoax, just negative evaluation of opposing evidence, which may be insufficient.

  • 2) You totally missed the reason why the Jobaria was NAMED Jobaria. Because the Tuaregs had a "mythical" creature whic they called Jobar and which resembled it.

Did you get what I said this time? Are you slow?

Soren G
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

are you slow?

obviously....cause you just can´t understand,that normal people don´t care,what mythical creatures are being credited with mythical properties....I know,you take everything for real until proven unreal or untrue..a quite alien concept, given the fact that you don´t care about evidence much,if it contradicts your wishful thinking belief world.

Nessie, Bigfoot, Yeti, name it....every poeple has stories like that...means,that they are real? Laughable....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
",that normal people don´t care,what mythical creatures are being credited with mythical properties"

I don't care what people YOU consider as "normal".

The point is that the "mythical" creature Jobar corresponds VERY well to the palaeontological creature Jobaria, found in same area as the Tuaregs withn their "myth" about Jobar.

The people I would consider as normal are able to take a hint about that.

"every poeple has stories like that...means,that they are real?"


Soren G
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
you know what normal is? obviously not.....normal is,to only belief claims,for which evidence can be presented....what can be checked..your whole belief system is based on have clink on to creationist bullshit blogs about some bullshit,supposedly backing up your bible fairy tale .....well,come back with something,recognized by credible scientific institutes ...does the Smithsonian has anything about your little fantasy creature? than don't try to sell me that shit.....see,the border between insane belief system and normality is quite clear defined....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Soren G We cannot absolutely check whether the Tuaregs believing in Jobars had seen Jobarias alive or had seen skeletons of them.

We can however check, or palaeontologists did it for us, that it would have been either. Because, for one, the coincidences between a Jobar as per Tuareg lore and the Jobaria as per dig out is a bit remarcable for being just coincidence.

However, it stands to reason that "we saw the skeleton of a monster" does not easily become "we saw a monster alive", even after many generations.

The Jobaria is dug out in palaeontology, though I think palaentological finds from Africa don't usually go to Smithsonian. I found all about it that I know about it on a site for palaeontology - including the reference to naming after a "mythical" creature.

No comments: