Would you like to play a game?
Nowhere Man
explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
rules are:
1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
uneducated tribe of people can understand.
2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
already have strange beliefs.
3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
will understand.
Simple enough?
NM
dkomo
Simple enough for you, Troll. Why don't you go first.
Peeved this morning with the assholes that infest TO.
TomS
<cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com>, some_wh...@yahoo.com
stated..."
Oh, I think that I'd find some time to put in the midst of
all my rules about cleanliness and purity and avoiding disease,
a little rule that would say something like:
Thou shalt make thy water pure by boiling it.
or
To honor me, thou shalt pour thy drinking water
through a fine cloth.
or
Thou shall take care that thy bodily fluids do
not get into thy drinking water.
And, I might introduce them to that by saying, maybe I'd
put one more "day of creation", if necessary, "On the nth day,
God made the various invisible disease-causing life forms, and
they were widespread throughout the waters."
Tom S.
Michael Altarriba
OK, here goes:
"We don't know exactly how everything started, but we can see that our
world works as if it followed certain rules. When you hold up a stone,
then let go, it falls. When you put a dry leaf in a fire, it burns. This
happens no matter who holds the stone, or puts the leaf in the fire.
This happens whether your father did it yesterday, or you do it today,
or your son does it tomorrow. If you, and your people, look at the world
and compare what you see, you can begin to find out what those rules
are. And, the more you compare, and the more rules you learn, the more
you will learn how the world works.
My people have spent much time and effort learning these rules. We have
learned that the water, the earth, and even the air are made of very
little parts... parts so little that they are too small to see. Even you
and I are made of parts like this, and these little parts act as if they
follow rules, too. My people have studied these little parts, and how
they work, and have learned much about the birds, the flowers, the
earth, the water, the sky, and everything else. We have learned how the
things that live today are the children of the things that lived
yesterday, and we have learned that children are very much like their
parents, but not the same. Some children do well in life, and grow to
have children themselves, and others do not. The children who then have
children of their own have children that are very like themselves.
Parents do well and have children, some of those children do well and
have children of their own, and on, and on... So, that lizard over there
has children, some of which are a little different. Those children in
turn have children of their own, and some of those are a little
different too. After this happens enough times, the children can be
very, very different from the parents that came long before. In this
way, from very simple living things, life has changed and changed over
many, many generations until our world has many different kind of
children... all the things that live now. Where did the first life come
from? We are not sure, but our people think that those little parts I
told you of, the little parts that make everything that is, can
sometimes come together in a special way so that groups of little parts
make more groups of little parts that are like them. All that lives is
the child of these groups of little parts.
And, those same rules tell us how the Sun, and the Moon, and the lights
you see in the sky at night came to be, too.
There... how's that?
"When a troll hands you lemons, make lemonade."
Frank Reichenbacher
"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com...
When you say 'tribe', you really mean 'you', right?
Frank
> Simple enough?
>
> NM
>
NA Sides
No, that would be very difficult for me to do in such a way that they
would have accurate knowledge. If I was omniscient and omnipresent,
though, it would be a different matter. I wouldn't just give them a
story written on a few scraps of papyrus or incised into clay tablets.
I'd educate them. I'd show them all how it really works. And I'd stick
around to see that they really did understand. This would mean that in
fairly short order would no longer be an uneducated tribe of people
with strange beliefs. They'd have science beyond what we presently
possess. And I'd do it for everybody in every corner of the world. But
that's just an imaginary scenario, of course.
NAS
>
>NM
Richard A. Mathers
"Why do you want them to bring up the Bible?" Glenn.
RAM
gen2rev
1 Before the beginning there was nothing, not even time.
2 No one knows what happened at the very beginning, but less than a
heartbeat later, everything that makes up the Earth, Moon, Sun,
Stars, and the entire universe, was crowded close together, into a
space with so little space, that it was unimaginably hot.
3 Because of this, parts of the fledgling universe moved away from the
other parts, just as the boiling water in a pot seeks to escape the
pot.
4 And over a very long time the universe expanded, and began to cool.
5 But the universe did not expand evenly, and so lumps of matter
formed.
6 In some of these lumps the matter at their center became hot because
of all the pressure of everything surrounding them.
7 The matter became so hot that it burned and changed, and in doing so
gave off light.
8 The lumps began to shine with this light as it escaped from them, and
so the first stars were born.
9 These first stars burned for a long time, but just as some people
live extraordinary lives and die young, so some stars burned
brightly, so brightly that they exploded, scattering themselves and
the matter that they were made of.
10 Some of this matter would be the seeds of other lumps, some which in
turn became other stars.
11 And one of these lumps we now know as the Sun.
12 But some lumps never begin to burn, and never become stars.
13 One such lump became what we know as the Moon, and another became
Mother Earth.
14 When Mother Earth first formed she was a mix of everything.
15 But over time, the heavy matter sank towards the center, and the
lighter matter moved to the surface, just as cream rises in milk.
16 This is why water is above rock, and air above the both of them.
17 In the early days of Mother Earth, nothing lived upon it.
18 The land was bare, and the seas were empty.
19 But matter seeks order, and just as snowflakes and crystals are
balanced in order as well as shape, other types of matter will seek
order as well.
20 And this is how life came to be.
21 The first life was so simple that we might not even know it to be
life if we were to see it, but over long periods of time it changed.
22 Life first lived in the sea, and gradually it diversified over long
periods of time into most of what we still find in the sea, such as
fish, clams, oysters, crustaceans, and even the different plants that
live in the oceans.
23 But the land was still bare.
24 But gradually, plants that lived in the seas changed over long
periods of time so that they could live on the land.
25 Crustaceans followed the land plants, and changed over the eons into
insects and spiders so they could live on the land as well.
26 And over the millennia some fish changed into creatures that could
live on land for short periods of time, but that had to return to the
water to lay eggs.
27 And these creatures in turn changed into reptiles, which never need
to return to the water to lay eggs.
28 And over the millennia some of these reptiles grew fur, began to give
birth to live young, and so became mammals.
29 And some of the reptiles took to the trees and grew feathers, and so
became birds.
30 Some of the mammals took to the trees as well, and their paws turned
into grasping hands to hold the branches so they wouldn't fall.
31 Later, some returned from the trees to the ground, and learned to
walk on their hind legs.
32 They created language to exchange thoughts amongst themselves.
33 And they created art, music, writing, religion and science.
34 And they looked to the stars, and wondered in wonderment.
Roy
Once upon a time, long before anyone now living was born, before the
trees sprouted or the rivers flowed, the world was nothing but Fire.
Fire hotter than burning wood or wax, hot enough the to melt metal and
rocks and to cause the very skies to burn.
The fire grew, and separated, to become stars. A part of the fire became
the sun; another part cooled, and became the moon. A third part also
cooled and became the world.
As the world continued to get colder, dew formed, and filled the hollows
in the land with water. In the deepest pool, the first life blossomed.
In the depths of the seas, the life multiplied, with each new generation
being larger, and faster. Some of the offspring had legs, to scuttle
across the bottom; some had tentacles that stung; some had fins to swim
with.
After many more generations, the seas were full, and the fish and crabs
therein fought against each other for food. But the land remained barren.
After many more generations, some fish and crabs struggled onto the
land, their fins and claws becoming legs. Again, the life multiplied,
some offspring having long legs and fur and horns, some having wings and
feathers, some having scales and fangs.
After many more generations the land and sky were also full, and the
creatures therein fought against each other for food.
After many more generations, a few land creatures developed hands, and
made tools and weapons. These were the first men. Their weapons and
tools helped them rule over the other creatures.
Yup, simple.
Roy
John Harshman
gen2rev wrote:
> Nowhere Man wrote:
>
>>I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
>>explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
>>life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
>>rules are:
>>
>>1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
>>uneducated tribe of people can understand.
>>2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
>>already have strange beliefs.
>>3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
>>that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
>>will understand.
>>
>>Simple enough?
Good try (below) but you ignored rule 3, in that you gave away new
scientific knowledge. I'm wondering why rule 3 exists. Is god supposed
to be keeping us ignorant? And how does this square with Nowhere Man's
belief that the Genesis story is literally true? If it's true, then god
is telling us new scientific knowledge in the story. If it's not true,
he's lying.
Then again, I notice that there is no rule about the story being true.
Perhaps this is the solution. If so, Genesis satisfies rule 3 perfectly.
gen2rev
>
> gen2rev wrote:
>
> > Nowhere Man wrote:
> >
> >>I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
> >>explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> >>life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> >>rules are:
> >>
> >>1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> >>uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> >>2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> >>already have strange beliefs.
> >>3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> >>that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> >>will understand.
> >>
> >>Simple enough?
>
> Good try (below)
Thanks. If I'd worked on it longer I could have made it more poetic
too...
> but you ignored rule 3, in that you gave away new
> scientific knowledge.
I tried to keep it to a minimum. But note the "trees down" theory for
the origin of birds 8)
> I'm wondering why rule 3 exists. Is god supposed
> to be keeping us ignorant? And how does this square with Nowhere Man's
> belief that the Genesis story is literally true? If it's true, then god
> is telling us new scientific knowledge in the story. If it's not true,
> he's lying.
Exactly. Is the order of creation in Genesis scientifically accurate?
Mike Dunford
news:3E958BAF...@cris.com:
[snip]
> Peeved this morning with the assholes that infest TO.
That was uncalled for.
If you don't like the idea, you don't need to respond. If you do feel
compelled to respond, it would be nice if you actually explained why
the idea annoys you so much, instead of limiting yourself to
pointless insults.
--Mike Dunford
--
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you
dreamt up after being drunk all night.
--Isaac Asimov
Christopher Denney
news:cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com:
Very simple.
see: The Bible
Note:
My answer is not the only existing religious work that qualifies.
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
Too much consistency is as bad for the mind as for the body. -Aldous
Huxley
Steve B.
"John Harshman" <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3E9581C7...@pacbell.net...
>
>
> gen2rev wrote:
>
> > Nowhere Man wrote:
> >
> >>I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
> >>explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> >>life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> >>rules are:
> >>
> >>1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> >>uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> >>2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> >>already have strange beliefs.
> >>3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> >>that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> >>will understand.
> >>
> >>Simple enough?
>
>
> Good try (below) but you ignored rule 3, in that you gave away new
> scientific knowledge. I'm wondering why rule 3 exists. Is god supposed
> to be keeping us ignorant? And how does this square with Nowhere Man's
> belief that the Genesis story is literally true? If it's true, then god
> is telling us new scientific knowledge in the story. If it's not true,
> he's lying.
>
> Then again, I notice that there is no rule about the story being true.
> Perhaps this is the solution. If so, Genesis satisfies rule 3 perfectly.
I think the idea is to be general enough not give anything away but specific
enough to show you're infinite wisdom after they figure it out themselves.
Steve
....
Steve B.
"gen2rev" <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:3E95A308...@crosswinds.net...
Amen.
Steve
"But some lumps never begin to burn..." (gen2rev 1:12)
dkomo
Sorry, I was in a really foul mood this morning. I don't normally
read or respond to anything by Nowhere Man, so I don't really know if
he is an asshole or not. Still, his post smelled like troll bait, and
I think if a troll is going to make a time consuming request of
people, he should first make an equal contribution.
gen2rev
Perhaps I should change the last phrase to "burn with wonderment".
Burn baby, burn!
Frank Reichenbacher
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face
of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from
the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the
evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and
let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning
were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto
one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the
waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his
kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons,
and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and
the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light
from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature
that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament
of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every
winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the
waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and
it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and
God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which
is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit
of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have
given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very
good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it
he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon
the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of
the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the
man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst
of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it
was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole
land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx
stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that
compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth
toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to
dress it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden
thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat
of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I
will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and
every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call
them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name
thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to
every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for
him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:
and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman,
and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she
shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave
unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
This may not be entirely original, but the author(s) been dead for quite a
while so I think the copyright has expired.
Frank
> Simple enough?
>
> NM
>
Thomas H. Faller
>I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
>explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
>life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
>rules are:
<simple rules omitted>
The Eagle pecked his way out of his eggshell and in looking
around him created all within his vision, which was very sharp.
There was nothing to see except clouds and sky and the nest
he lay in. As he emerged from the shell, he became fully grown and
spread his wings. He decided that he was hungry and so created
the rivers to hold the fish, and the earth to hold the river, and
the grass and trees to hold the rabbit. When he had fed, he looked
around again and decided that he would tell a joke. So he created
animals and men, each thinking that the world had been created
for them only.
And the joke was that he created them as they are now, but each
thinks that they have been around their whole lifetime, though
they have all been made just this morning. He laughed at this,
and spread his wings and flew, bright and alone in the empty sky.
>Simple enough?
There are no end of creation myths that do an adequate job of
telling people how the world began. Some of them have jokes, to
let the listeners know that the story is a human invention.
If you want to explain nuclear resonance in terms a tribe can
understand, are out of luck. That part of the story won't be
retold, nor will anything that runs contrary to everyday experience
or imagination. That's why even if Yahweh packed Adam out of the
Garden with a Funk & Wagnells', we'd still have the same Bible
we have today. Human culture goes for stories, not data. Why do
you think your weather report is told like a news story?
Tom Faller
Steve B.
Well let me see, I suppose I would... forsooth! To do such a thing, I would have
to write the very book of Genesis! Behold, this truly is the inspired word of
God! For how could man in his limited mortal knowledge roughly and somewhat
inaccurately approximate the stages of natural history as we know them today? To
put the creation of land animals after the earth itself? To put the creation of
flying animals after the beginning of the universe? Is there a limit to the
insights this book contains?
To give the Genesis creation account credit, it does manage to hit much closer
to home than other myths circulating at the time. However if I was inspiring
Moses to write the creation account I would have made it more adaptable to
future scientific discoveries. It might go something like this:
Genesis 1 (Second Edition)
In the beginning there was nothing. God went on to say, "Let there be a
division between the nothingness," and there came to be a division and there
came to be heavens. Then God said, "Let the heavens burst forth and begin all
things," and the heavens burst forth and there came to be height and breadth and
width and time. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let there be light" and there came to be many divisions
between the heavens and the heavens and these divisions became as luminaries.
And no man could count them. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let there be bodies in the heavens," and the luminaries
burst forth and became bodies in the heavens, each in their own paths according
to the luminaries in the heavens. And it was so.
Then God saw that there was nothing but death upon bodies in the heavens. So
God said, "On this body, let there come to be a division between the death," and
this body became the earth because on in there was a division between the death
and the death. And this division was called life because it continued according
to it's own image. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let there be a variety among life so that one generation may
be different than the rest," and each generation of life became different than
the ones preceding it. And God was pleased.
Then God said, "Let the waters be fruitful and bring forth living creatures,
each according to their place." And the waters brought forth living creatures,
each according to their place in the waters. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let the living creatures of the seas increase in number and
multiply onto the land, each according to their place." And the land brought
forth living creatures, each according to their place on the land, from
creatures that move along the ground to those who fly in the air. And the land
brought forth great monsters that walked upon two feet and tiny creeping things
that no man can see and living creatures grew in number and multiplied in
places. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image and let them have all the
things I have created to and to explore and to create and to enjoy." And the
earth brought forth man in the image of God, male and female they came forth.
Then God said, "Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and
subdue it." God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
Alternate Ending:
Then God said, "Let us not make man, for man will foul up the earth and all
the great things I have made." And God agreed.
Alternate Ending II:
Then God said, "Be fruitful and increase in number like rabbits, fill the
earth and subdue it." God saw all that he had made, and it was very good -
except for stink beetles.
Alternate Ending III:
Then God said, "I'll be back in a few thousand years to see how you've
done."
Atheist Ending:
Then God said, "What did you need me for again?"
Naturalist Ending:
Then God said, "I am a metaphore for natural causes."
Creationist Ending:
Then God said, "Mutations cannot cause a gain of information; only a loss."
But Adam was confused and asked, "But Lord, what about back mutations?" And
God's wrath grew great against Adam and His anger blazed and God cursed Adam and
banished him from the Garden of Eden.
Steve
I will wipe mankind, ... for I am grieved that I have made them.
-- God
Frank Reichenbacher
A very long time ago there was nothing but water. In the east First Woman,
the deity of all hard substances, lived in the ocean. Her house was a hole
in the ground like the hole in the grounds of the People of to-day. To the
ladder leading into the hole in the ground were usually tied a skin of a
gray fox and one of a yellow fox. Another First Woman lived in the ocean in
the west in a similar hole in the ground, but to her ladder was attached a
turtle-shell rattle.
The Sun also existed at that time. Shortly before rising in the east the Sun
would dress up in the skin of the gray fox, whereupon it would begin to
dawn--the so-called white dawn of the People. After a little while the Sun
would lay off the gray skin and put on the yellow fox skin, whereupon the
bright dawn of the morning--the so-called yellow dawn of the People--would
appear. The Sun would then rise, that is, emerge from an opening in the
north end of the hole in the ground in which First Woman lived. When
arriving in the west again, the sun would first announce his arrival by
fastening the rattle on the point of the ladder beam, whereupon he would
enter the hole in the ground, pass through an opening in the north end of
the hole in the ground, and continue his course eastward under the water and
so on.
By and by these two deities caused some dry land to appear in the midst of
the water, the waters receding eastward and westward. The Sun passing over
this dry land constantly took notice of the fact, that no living being of
any kind could be seen anywhere, and mentioned this fact to the two deities.
So one time the First Woman of the west sent word through the Sun to the
First Woman in the east to come over to her as she wanted to talk over this
matter. The First Woman of the east complied with this request and proceeded
to the West over a rainbow. After consulting each other on this point the
two concluded that they would create a little bird; so the deity of the east
made a wren of clay, and covered it up with a piece of native cloth.
Hereupon they sang a song over it, and after a little while the little bird
showed signs of life. Uncovering it, a live bird came forth, saying: "Why do
you want me so quickly". "Yes," they said, "we want you to fly all over this
dry place and see whether you can find anything living." They thought that
as the Sun always passed over the middle of the earth, he might have failed
to notice any living beings that might exist in the north or the south. So
the little Wren, flew al over the earth, but upon its return reported that
no living being existed anywhere. Tradition says, however, that by this time
Other Woman, lived somewhere in the south-west at the edge of the water,
also in a hole in the ground, but this the little bird had failed to notice.
Hereupon the deity of the west proceeded to make very many birds of
different kinds and form, placing them again under the same cover under
which the Wren had been brought, to life. They again sang a song over them.
Presently the birds began to move under the cover. The goddess removed the
cover and found under it all kinds of birds and fowls. "Why do you want us
so quickly?" the latter asked. "Yes, we want you to inhabit this world."
Hereupon the two deities taught every kind of bird the sound that it should
make, and then the birds scattered out in all directions.
Hereupon the First Woman of the west made of clay all different kinds of
animals, and they were brought to life in the same manner as the birds. They
also asked the same question: "Why do you want us so quickly?" "We want you
to inhabit this earth," was the reply given them, whereupon they were taught
by their creators their different sounds or languages, after which they
proceeded forth to inhabit the different parts of the earth. They now
concluded that they would create man. The deity of the east made of clay
first a woman and then a man, who were brought to life in exactly the same
manner as the birds and animals before them. They asked the same question,
and were told that they should live upon this earth and should understand
everything. Hereupon the First Woman of the east made two tablets of some
hard substance, whether stone or clay tradition does not say, and drew upon
them with the wooden stick certain characters, handing these tablets to the
newly created man and woman, who looked at them, but did not know what they
meant. So the deity of the east rubbed with the palms of her hands, first
the palms of the woman and then the palms of the man, by which they were
enlightened so that they understood the writing on the tablets. Hereupon the
deities taught these two a language. After they had taught them the
language, the goddess of the east took them out of the hole in the ground
and led them over a rainbow, to her home in the east. There they stayed four
days, after which First Woman told them to go now and select for themselves
a place and live there. The two proceeded forth saying that they would
travel around a while and wherever they would find a good field they would
remain. Finding a nice place at last, they built a small, simple house,
similar to the old houses of the People. Soon the First Woman of the west
began to think of the matter again, and said to herself : "This is not the
way yet that it should be. We are not done yet," and communicated her
thoughts to the First Woman of the east. By this time Other Woman had heard
about all this matter and she concluded to anticipate the others and also
create some beings. So she also made a man and woman of clay, covered them
up, sang over them, and brought to life her handiwork. But these two proved
to be Other People. She taught them the Other People language, also giving
them similar tablets and imparting knowledge to them by rubbing their hands
in the same manner as the woman of the East had done with the "White Men."
Hereupon she created two burros, which she gave to the Other People man and
woman. The latter settled down close by. After this, Other Woman continued
to create people in the same manner as she had created the Other People,
always a man and a woman, giving a different language to each pair. But all
at once she found that she had forgotten to create a woman for a certain
man, and that is the reason why now there are always some single men.
She continued the creating of people in the same manner, giving new
languages as the pairs were formed. All at once she found that she had
failed to create a man for a certain woman, in other words, it was found
that there was one more woman than there were men. "Oh my!'' she said, "How
is this?" and then addressing the single woman she said: ''There is a single
man somewhere, who went away from here. You try to find him and if he
accepts you, you live with him. If not, both of you will have to remain
single. You do the best you can about that." The two finally found each
other, and the woman said, "Where shall we live?" The man answered: "Why
here, anywhere. We shall remain together." So he went to work and built a
house for them in which they lived. But it did not take very long before
they commenced to quarrel with each other. "I want to live here alone," the
woman said. "I can prepare food for myself." ''Yes, but who will get the
wood for you? Who will work the fields?" the man said. "We had better remain
together." They made up with each other, but peace did not last. They soon
quarreled again, separated for a while, came together again, separated
again, and so on. Had these people not lived in that way, all the other
People would now live in peace, but others learned it from them, and that is
the reason why there are so many contentions between the men and their
wives. These were the kind of people that Other Woman had created. The First
Woman of the west heard about this and commenced to meditate upon it. Soon
she called the goddess from the east to come over again, which the latter
did. "I do not want to live here alone," the deity of the west said, "I also
want some good people to live here." So she also created a number of other
people, but always a man and a wife. They were created in the same manner as
the deity of the east had created hers. They lived in the west. Only
wherever the people that Other Woman had created came in contact with these
good people there was trouble. The people at that time led a nomadic life,
living mostly on game. Wherever they found rabbits or antelope or deer they
would kill the game and eat it. This led to a good many contentions among
the people. Finally the Woman of the west said to her people: "You remain
here; I am going to live, after this, in the midst of the ocean in the west.
When you want anything from me, you pray to me there." Her people regretted
this very much, but she left them. The First Woman of the east did exactly
the same thing, and that is the reason why at the present day the places
where these two live are never seen.
Those People who now want something from them deposit their prayer offerings
in the village. When, they say their wishes and prayers they think of those
two who live in the far distance, but of whom the People believe that they
still remember them.
The Other People were angry at First Woman and two of them took their guns
and proceeded to the abiding place of the deity. The Other People are very
skillful and they found a way to get there. When they arrived at the house
of First Woman the latter at once surmised what their intentions were. "You
have come to kill me," she said; "don't do that; lay down your weapons and I
shall show you something; I am not going to hurt you." They laid down their
arms, whereupon she went to the rear end of the hole in the ground and
brought out a white lump like a stone and laid it before the two men, asking
them to lift it up. One tried it, but could not lift it up, and what was
worse, his hands adhered to the stone. The other man tried to assist him,
but his hands also adhered to the stone, and thus they were both prisoners.
Hereupon First Woman took the two guns and said: "These do not amount to
anything," and then rubbed them between her hands to powder. She then said
to them: "You people ought to live in peace with one another. You people of
Other Woman know many things, and the people whom we have made also know
many, but different, things. You ought not to quarrel about these things,
but learn from one another; if one has or knows a good thing he should
exchange it with others for other good things that they know and have. If
you will agree to this I shall release you. They said they did, and that
they would no more try to kill the deity. Then the latter went to the rear
end of the hole in the ground where she disappeared through an opening in
the floor, from where she exerted a secret influence upon the stone and thus
released the two men, They departed, but First Woman did not fully trust
them, thinking that they would return, but they never did.
This may not be entirely original either.
Frank
>
> Simple enough?
>
> NM
>
John Harshman
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
> "Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com...
>
>>I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
>>explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
>>life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
>>rules are:
>>
>>1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
>>uneducated tribe of people can understand.
>>2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
>>already have strange beliefs.
>>3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
>>that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
>>will understand.
Excellent. It even follows rule 3, since it contains no scientific
knowledge. Somehow, though, I suspect Nowhere Man believes that it does.
John Harshman
Steve B. wrote:
> "Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> Alternate Ending II:
>
> Then God said, "Be fruitful and increase in number like rabbits, fill the
> earth and subdue it." God saw all that he had made, and it was very good -
> except for stink beetles.
This is out of character. We all know God has an inordinate fondness for
beetles.
[snip]
Steve B.
No, that's Beatles.
Steve
Frank Reichenbacher
In the beginning, the world was nothing but a quagmire. Nothing could live
there. But in the six skies above and in the six worlds below dwelled gods,
demons, and animals.
In the foggy and hanging skies of the lower heavens, demons lived. In the
star-bearing and high skies of the clouds lived the lesser gods. In the
skies of the most high lived the creator God, and his servants. His realm
was surrounded by a mighty metal wall and the only entrance was through a
great iron gate.
God made this world as a vast round ocean resting on the backbone of an
enormous trout. This fish sucks in the ocean and spits it out again to make
the tides; when it moves it causes earthquakes.
One day God looked down on the watery world and decided to make something of
it. He sent down a water wagtail to do the work. When the poor bird arrived
and saw what a mess everything was in, it was at its wit's end to know what
to do. However, by fluttering over the waters with its wings and by
trampling the sand with its feet and beating it with its tail, the wagtail
at last created patches of dry land. In this way islands were raised to
float upon the ocean in this, the floating world. Even today, the faithful
wagtail is still carrying on its work, still beating the ground with its
tail.
When God created the world, the devil tried to thwart him. One morning, the
devil got up and lay in wait with his mouth gaping wide to swallow the sun.
But God sent a crow to fly down the devil's throat and make him choke and
cough. That is why the crow is such a bold bird. Because a crow once saved
the world, all crows think they can act as they like, even stealing people's
food.
When the animals who lived up in the heavens saw how beautiful the world
was, they begged God to let them go and live on it, and he did. But God also
made many other creatures especially for the world. The First People had
bodies of earth, hair of chickweed, and spines made from sticks of willow.
That is why when we grow old, our backs become bent.
God sent First Man down from heaven to teach the First People how to hunt
and to cook. When First Man returned to heaven after living among the people
and teaching them many things, the gods all held their noses, crying, "What
a terrible smell of human being there is!"
They sniffed and sniffed to find out where the stink was coming from. At
last they traced the smell to First Man's clothes. The Gods sent him back to
earth and refused to let him back into heaven until he left all his clothes
behind. Down in the floating world, First Man's cast-off sandals turned into
the first squirrels.
Likewise not very original, but I think it meets the criteria.
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
The seeds of the Holy Sea break out of your shell.
The eternal sea's waves are waving, and rolling.
Their waves are rocking and their foam is hissing.
There is no earth yet anywhere, but in the immeasurable heights,
Above in his golden house, sits the great heavenly father on his golden
throne.
He is the old, white haired and white bearded God of eternity.
On his black robes there are thousands of sparkling stars.
Besides him sits his wife, the Great Heavenly Mother.
On her white robes there are thousands of sparkling stars.
She is the ancient material of which everything is made.
They have existed from eternity in the past and will exist for all eternity
to come.
In front of them stands their beautiful golden sunbeam haired son,
The Sun God. The boy asks of his father:
"When shall we create the world of the humans my dear father?"
The Eternal Sea just waves and rolls.
Its waves are rocking and its foam is hissing.
The old gray-haired heavenly father lowers his head .
He ponders the question a while and a little longer,
Then he lifts his white haired head and talks to his son.
-- My dear sweet golden haired son, let us create then
For the humans their own world, so that they, who will be
Your children shall have a place to live in.
-- How shall we create such a world, my dear father?
-- This is the manner in which we can create it:
In the depths of the waving, blue Sea of Eternity are the
Sleeping eyes, sleeping seeds
The sleeping Man Seeds.
Descend therefore to the depths of the Great Sea.
Bring up the sleeping seeds and dreaming eyes, so that
We can create a world out of them.
The son followed the direction of his father.
He turned himself into his image of a golden bird, into a golden diving
duck.
Then he flew down to the expanses of the Endless Sea.
He swam for a while on top of the water,
Rocked by the waves of the sea for a while.
He then dived down into the depths of the blue,
Searching for the bottom, but unable to reach it.
Out of breath, he was forced to resurface.
He swam on top again, rocked by the waves,
He gathered his strength, for a long time.
After taking deep breaths he submerged again into the blue depths,
Diving deeper, into the darkness, slowly releasing his air
Which like vibrating pearls rose to the top and popped on the surface of the
rolling sea.
However now his beak hit the bottom of the sea, into its sand.
He took some of it into his beak and like an arrow,
He shot up to the top of the water with it
From the surface of the sea bed, he brought up the
Sleeping eyes/seeds, silver white small eyes.
The sleeping eyes awoke, the sleepy eyes opened and grew up and became
living beings.
Another story for your consideration.
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com...
> I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> rules are:
>
> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> already have strange beliefs.
> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> will understand.
>
> Simple enough?
>
> NM
>
The stories I submitted are as follows:
Hopi Origin Myth
http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/hopi/toth/toth_001.htm
King James Version, Holy Bible, Genesis Chapter 1
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+1&language=english&ver
sion=KJV
King James Version, Holy Bible, Genesis Chapter 2
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+2&language=english&ver
sion=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on
Ainu Creation Myth
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/miranda.htm
Hungarian Creation Myth
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/oberon.htm#HUNGARIAN
They are all myths.
Frank
Chris Thompson
> I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> rules are:
>
> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> already have strange beliefs.
> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> will understand.
>
> Simple enough?
>
> NM
I am not sure how I would do it. The one thing I surely would *not*
do is write it in such a way as to _keep_ the tribe simple-minded and
uneducated.
Chris
boikat
> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> rules are:
>
> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
It's hard enough getting supposedly well educated creationists to understand
it by using simple terms that the simple minded should understand.
> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> already have strange beliefs.
Should that be relevent to explaining the truth (as far a science can
determine it) them?
> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> will understand.
By telling them of an ancient univers, earth, the process of evolution, and
so on, you would be exposing them to scientific knowledge that they didn't
already have (If they did already have this knowledge, then you would not
have to explain it to them to begin with.
>
> Simple enough?
Rule three says it can't be done, even if you are loose with the details
and want to call your made up story "Genesis", but you could probably get
the details in better order, and use big numbers. But even then, you'd
still be emparting new scientific knowledge to them.
Because of rule three, even metaphore is risky, and renders the whole "game"
moot.
Boikat
Christopher Denney
I thought that was Adam. Beetle, beetle, beetle, cow, beetle, moose...
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
I value the friend who for me finds time on his calendar, but I cherish
the friend who for me does not consult the calendar. -Robert Brault
Christopher Denney
news:sfOdnSqLh6_...@speakeasy.net:
>
[snip damn fine story]
> This may not be entirely original either.
>
> Frank
>
>>
>> Simple enough?
>>
>> NM
>>
>
>
>
Cool, sounds kind of like a couple of different stories from native
american mythology.
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
It is one of the most beautiful compensations of this life that no man
can sincerely try to help another without helping himself. -Ralph Waldo
Emerson, American writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
John Wilkins
> I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> rules are:
>
> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> already have strange beliefs.
> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> will understand.
>
> Simple enough?
>
> NM
In the beginning all was compressed and without form. Then for reasons
known only to the Powers that Be, it grew and grew until everything was
spread throughout the heavens. It is in the nature of things to move
together, and so the mists of heaven fell together and became globes
that, if they were big enough, began to shine, and around them in paths
of circles moved smaller globes. In all the many uncountable stars one
globe became the world, and as it cooled from being made, water formed,
and dry lands, and life began from the elements of the earth.
First were the simple things that could make food from rock and the
elements of the earth, and from the light of the sun. Then out of them
came more complex things, which took food of other livign things as
well. Then the complex things joined together, and those that joined
well lived and bore offspring, while those that joined poorly bore less
offspring. Thus did more and more complex living things - plants and
animals and fungi and the scum of the pond all come to be.
Each living thing reproduced after its kind, and so when changes added
up, the kinds changed so that the number of kinds multiplied, and filled
the earth from the highest mountain and the clouds of the air, to the
deepest ocean and the rocks beneath the mountains. And yet, there were
no people, but only things that lived in the water, the mother of all
life.
There came to be fish that could breath the air and plants that could
grow in it, and so they moved over time from living partly in water and
partly on land, so that there came to be things that lived on dry land
alone, and things that stayed partly in water and partly on land, and
things that lived only in water, fresh and briny, as it still is today.
Living creatures on land, like living things in water, changed their
kinds too, and so some changed in ways that made them able to live in
trees, and some lived on the plains, and some lived in the cold parts of
the earth where snow and ice remain, The Powers that Be may think this
is good, but life merely lived, and strove to exist, in all the places
where it went.
Some living things changed to grow fur and some to grow feathers, so to
keep themselves warm when it was cold, for it is hard to stay warm, and
takes much food to keep the inner fires of living things going. Those
that grew fur also fed their offspring milk from their teats, while
those that grew feathers laid eggs.
Some feathered kinds had longer and stronger feathers, which were turned
to many tasks, and eventually allowed them to fly, as other creatures
had before them without feathers, but with skin stretched between their
fingers, as bats came also to do later, though they have fur and feed
their young milk.
And furry animals grew and changed kinds so that some lived on the
grassy plains when grass became a kind, and others lived in the trees
and fed on leaves and fruit. Some of the tree living fruit eating
animals changed to have fingers in the place of their forefeet, and they
changed their kinds, and monkeys and apes came to be.
And one ape lived in a dry time in a place away from the homes of its
ancestors, and so some were born that could walk on the hind legs only,
and see the lions and hyenas and other predators of the grassy plains.
And with its hands free, it tamed fire, and learned to make axes and
knives and spears, and lived together in great tribes, and to talk
properly, and not like the messages other animals send which are always
the same.
And this was the ape known as people. And the evening and the morning
were the 4 and one half billionth year of the globe we call the world.
And the human ape saw that it was as good a life as any, and got on with
it...
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
Pithecanthropus erectus
> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> rules are:
>
> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> already have strange beliefs.
> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> will understand.
>
> Simple enough?
>
> NM
>
I would rather play "Global Thermonuclear War 2.0"
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.467 / Virus Database: 266 - Release Date: 4/1/03
Mark VandeWettering
> I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> rules are:
>
> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> already have strange beliefs.
> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> will understand.
>
> Simple enough?
People have played this game. Some people are still playing this game.
We generally call them "creationists".
Mark
> NM
Chris Ho-Stuart
> I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> rules are:
>
> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> already have strange beliefs.
> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> will understand.
>
> Simple enough?
Sounds like fun... Point 3 sounds a bit odd, however. I think it
would be better expressed as follows:
3. You must not assume any modern scientific knowledge, but must
write the story in terms they will understand.
I have a meta-comment, however. It seems that the intent of
this story is for us to present the facts of the formation of
the universe, as far as we know according to science, in terms
comprehensible to people who are not familiar with modern science.
That is, the intent of the story is to explain how the world came
to be.
This is never the point of creation stories.
Creation stories are invariably aimed at a different level; to
explain the nature of existence, or of God, or something about
human worth or responsilibities, or something about world orders,
or *something* of immediate import.
For example, I think the first creation story in the bible is about
monotheism. It takes an already existing cosmological structure,
and gives it a new form; and the point of the story lies in the
differences with the older tradition. The parallels between Genesis
1 and the Babylonian Enuma Elish are well known; what are the
differences? The major difference is God's supreme authority; it
is a step by step refutation of the polytheistic Babylonian view.
The Enuma Elish itself, however, probably has a more political
subtext. The culmination of the creation was the building
of Babylon.
The second creation story in Genesis has an entirely different
focus. It about humanity and the problems associated with our
experience of evil.
The fixation on the events themselves and whether they are
"true" or not is a modern innovation. The historical veracity of
creation stories may have been generally assumed in some cases;
but through history this has always been the least important
aspect of the stories. The focus of has always been on the many
clear and deliberate uses of allusion, allegory, symbolism, and
metaphor which are used by the story teller to bring across the
intended take home lessons.
Cheers -- Chris
Lane Lewis
> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> rules are:
>
> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> already have strange beliefs.
> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> will understand.
>
> Simple enough?
>
>
There were many many gods and each god created one small particle and these
particles created all that makes the universe.
Side note - one of these creation stories being posted might eventually
replace Christianity in a few hundred years, ya just never know about these
things.
Lane
Yes, but you are taking the universe out of context!
Bigdakine
>From: some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man)
>Date: 4/10/03 4:56 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com>
>
>I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
>explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
>life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
>rules are:
>
>1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
>uneducated tribe of people can understand.
Thats nigh impossible, quite frankly.
Which is why Genesis is not a science text and shouldn't be substituted for
one.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Jim Fisher
I don't think anyone else got it. What you are asking was done many
thousands of years ago (but you knew that, didn't you?). It goes something
like this:
"In the Beginning God created . . . "
--
Jim Fisher
Lane Lewis
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1ft8tbh.12rkm5s1cfeqr9N%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> Nowhere Man <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
> > explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> > life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> > rules are:
> >
> > NM
Where have I heard this before ?
:O)
Lane
Ian H Spedding
wil...@wehi.edu.au says...
And, lo, the ape cast the bone of a tapir into the heavens and
created Star Trek. And the ape saw that it was good and sent
forth franchises to multiply and fill the world with Jedi and
vampire-slayers after their kind.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
John Wilkins
Errmmm... wrong narrative universe/s.
Steve B.
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1ft8tbh.12rkm5s1cfeqr9N%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
Please come back next week when Reverend Wilkins will the deliver the sermon,
"Planet of the Ape-Men". The collection plate will be passed before and after
the delivery.
Steve
Steve B.
"Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote in message
news:XPadnYmgMMw...@speakeasy.net...
I'm confused, so the cops knew internal affairs was setting them up?
Steve
Matt Silberstein
bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine):
>>Subject: Would you like to play a game?
>>From: some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man)
>>Date: 4/10/03 4:56 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com>
>>
>>I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
>>explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
>>life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
>>rules are:
>>
>>1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
>>uneducated tribe of people can understand.
>
>Thats nigh impossible, quite frankly.
>
>Which is why Genesis is not a science text and shouldn't be substituted for
>one.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Which is good
since your premise is false. That is, such stories could exist.
Wilkins did a reasonable good job in his attempt.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.
Mark Isaak
<ch...@DO.pagan.NOT.net.SPAM> wrote:
>some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in
>news:cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com:
>
>> I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
>> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
>> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
>> rules are:
>>
>> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
>> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
>> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
>> already have strange beliefs.
>> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
>> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
>> will understand.
>>
>> Simple enough?
>>
>> NM
>>
>
>Very simple.
>see: The Bible
Two problems. First, the Bible doesn't expain the *how* of anything.
It just says stuff happened. Second, it got the order of events
wrong.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.
Christopher Denney
news:et1e9vssnce2okfki...@4ax.com:
The how is: goddidit. :)
The request stipulated nothing about correctness.
The only requirement was for it to be understandable to the ignorant,
without giving anything away about science.
The bible contains no science, and it's simple.
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
Every man has his secret sorrows, which the world knows not; and
oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad. -Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow(1807-1882)
John Harshman
Christopher Denney wrote:
Yes it did. Rule 3 actively precludes correctness, since the story may
not contain any scientific knowledge that the simple-minded and
uneducated tribe didn't already know.
The interesting question here is the reason for Rule 3. Why did Nowhere
Man put that rule in? It appears to be a fine bit of White Queen
reasoning. Genesis, for Nowhere Man, is true, but it has no scientific
content, even though it explains in detail how the world was created,
which would seem to be important scientific information. And of course
he is an adherent of creation science, which begins by assuming that
Genesis is a scientific document. White Queen!
_AnonCoward_
: I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
: explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
: life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
: rules are:
:
: 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
: uneducated tribe of people can understand.
: 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
: already have strange beliefs.
: 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
: that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
: will understand.
:
: Simple enough?
:
: NM
Ralf:
Rule #1 is unreasonable. Uneducated, yes - but why simpleminded? Humans
are generally very intelligent every where you go - there is no need to
be condescending or treat this hypothetical tribe like children.
Rule #2 is ok but biased. "Strange" by whose standards - ours or theirs?
And of course, rule #3 begs the question what does this "tribe" already
know and understand? What is their belief system? What is their world
view? Etc. If we are to explain these thing in that context, we need to
know what it is first.
Still...
In the beginning there was Nothing - there were no things, there was no
time, there was only unfathomable Nothingness.
And the Nothingness became Everything and was called the Universe. At
first, the Universe was small like a grain of sand and even smaller -
smaller than the grain of sand as the grain of sand is smaller that the
Universe itself today. The Nothingness-That-Became-Everything focused
itself into a place so small that it almost wasn't. Everything That Was,
Everything That Is and Everything That Will Be had its beginning in that
small grain. This was the beginning of Time.
And the Universe was hot with a great heat and began to grow and expand
and started to give birth to new things. And as the universe grew, it
formed the stars which were born and grew and died. And as the stars
died, they gave birth to new stars that also grew and died. The stars
today are children of older stars that have died and will give birth to
new stars when they die as well.
In this manner, the sun was born from the remains of other great stars
that had died. And as the sun formed, the earth, the moon, the planets
and the comets were formed along with it.
And the earth was hot and boiling and there were no living things. But
the earth cooled and the mountains rose, the oceans formed and living
things started to grow in the water. But like the Universe at its
beginning, these were small creatures that cannot be seen but they grew
and prospered and filled the oceans.
And as the living things grew, they changed and gave rise to new forms
of life. And in this manner all things that are alive today came into
being. The small creatures gave rise to larger creatures in the oceans,
strange and wonderous - seaweed formed as did animals like worms and
starfish and shellfish and fish with bones.
And these creatures spread to the land where the became mosses and ferns
and trees and grasses and spiders and insects and toads and lizards and
birds and animals and all the living forms we see today.
And the animals with four feet who give live birth to their children and
feed them with milk also grew and changed and became varied. From these
creatures humans were born, but unlike other creatures, humans walked on
two feet, crafted tools, tamed fire and learned to speak. And from these
humans all the races of humanity were formed and spread out upon the
earth. And all things that are alive have a blood relationship to all
other living things.
Ralf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {| |} SIG BLOCK {| |} _ *
* /_``>*< ========== >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) 03-28-2003 (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nature is the canvas of creation and evolution but one of
the brushes. Religion points us to the mind of God whereas
science allows us to observe its unfolding. The subjective
apprehends knowledge while the objective facilitates
understanding.
In all things, yin and yang - ever flowing, one into the
other; always overtaking and always being overtaken.
eyelessgame
> I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> rules are:
>
> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> already have strange beliefs.
> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> will understand.
>
> Simple enough?
Self-contradictory requirements. "Explaining how the universe, stars,
earth, water, ocean life, land life, and airborne life, and finally
man came into existence" *is* scientific knowledge.
In other words, the object of the game is incompatible with rule 3.
Bigdakine
>From: Matt Silberstein mat...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 4/11/03 5:16 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <l7nd9vkgi43u1g5kk...@4ax.com>
>
>In talk.origins I read this message from
>bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine):
>
>>>Subject: Would you like to play a game?
>>>From: some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man)
>>>Date: 4/10/03 4:56 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com>
>>>
>>>I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
>>>explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
>>>life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
>>>rules are:
>>>
>>>1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
>>>uneducated tribe of people can understand.
>>
>>Thats nigh impossible, quite frankly.
>>
>>Which is why Genesis is not a science text and shouldn't be substituted for
>>one.
>
>Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
In your opinion. The premise depends on how one interprets Nohwere's request.
Thats my opinion.
Which is good
>since your premise is false. That is, such stories could exist.
>Wilkins did a reasonable good job in his attempt.
If you mean by *understand* "processing an extremely watered down version of
the history of oru space time continuum and basic science etc, such that even a
nitwit could follow it (and that he need not acquire some abstract rational
view of things), Wilkens did a good job. I agree, that there might be fewer
creationists if Wilkens had authored Genesis. But even that doesn't pass for a
science text. Do you recommend Wilkens essay as a science text?
I understood the Nowhere's request to be explain this stuff in book the size of
Genesis such that it imparts comprehension of fundamental science.
All due respect to John, its woefully inadequate in that respect. And I'm sure
it wasn't intended to be adequate either. But he may have a future as a
religion creator (lord knows they make more money than a philosopher)
I believe Nowhere's attempted argument, was that since we can't explain all
that shit either in a book the size of Genesis, what are we complaining about?
Ergo, IMHO, one cannot give an adequate history of the universe which imparts a
fundamental understading of science in a book the size of geneisis.
Of course what constitues *adequate* is open to debate.
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <l7nd9vkgi43u1g5kk...@4ax.com>
>
>In talk.origins I read this message from
>bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine):
>
>>>Subject: Would you like to play a game?
>>>From: some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man)
>>>Date: 4/10/03 4:56 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com>
>>>
>>>I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
>>>explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
>>>life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
>>>rules are:
>>>
>>>1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
>>>uneducated tribe of people can understand.
>>
>>Thats nigh impossible, quite frankly.
>>
>>Which is why Genesis is not a science text and shouldn't be substituted for
>>one.
>
>Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Which is good
>since your premise is false. That is, such stories could exist.
>Wilkins did a reasonable good job in his attempt.
on third thought, I didn't catch rule #3.
John Wilkins
At a given level (say, lower primary), why not? Not everything is
graduate level in order to be science. Pratchett et al. called teaching
Lying to Children, because you cannot teach the leading edge science to
folk who do not already have a certain background, and so simplification
is necessary just in order to communicate.
Beside, NN did not specify a science text, but a narrative of what
happened (to the best of our present knowledge) that is factually
correct and comprehensible to the Semitic goat herders of the late
Neolithic early Bronze Age.
>
> I understood the Nowhere's request to be explain this stuff in book the
> size of Genesis such that it imparts comprehension of fundamental science.
>
> All due respect to John, its woefully inadequate in that respect. And I'm
> sure it wasn't intended to be adequate either. But he may have a future as
> a religion creator (lord knows they make more money than a philosopher)
I have often given it some thought - the money would be useful, and the
babes... but no, I lack that deep penetrating stare that religious
frauds^Hprophets have to have.
But I object to the preceding paragraph. "Fundamental science" is not
even taught in undergraduate textbooks.
>
> I believe Nowhere's attempted argument, was that since we can't explain
> all that shit either in a book the size of Genesis, what are we
> complaining about?
>
> Ergo, IMHO, one cannot give an adequate history of the universe which
> imparts a fundamental understading of science in a book the size of
> geneisis.
>
> Of course what constitues *adequate* is open to debate.
>
Yes. I think you are overloading NN's requirements, here.
John Wilkins
I was just following the Rules that Nowhere Man set... it seems to me
relatively easy to explain the origins of the universe according to what
actually happened in language that might have been understood in
2000BCE; if that is what you wanted to do and you knew the truth of it.
Of course, thological interpretations on the part of the redactor might
add all kinds of political and other points (like covenants and
relations between the High King deity and His Chosen People), but so
long as the actual facts were correct, even if incomplete by logical
necessity, the origin story would be considered as a good foundation for
science.
But it is not. Nothing in Genesis is correct except by accident, and a
lot of it is simply incoherent - *if taken as a factual account*. And
that is the point - Genesis is *not* a factual account of the origin of
the world and of life; so if it has deep significance, it is not as the
basis for science. If it were correct in the way I show above, then that
would also be a good basis for claiming it as true revelation, by the
way. Instead, it must be read as the theological tradition from which at
least three modern religions sprang.
TomS
<3E96EA2A...@pacbell.net>, John stated..."
But it doesn't mean that there be stuff that is simply incorrect.
I would suggest, therefore, that all references to the "firmament"
be removed. It doesn't have to say, "there is no firmament", it can
just be silent about it.
Would it be breaking rule 3 if the order of creation were changed?
Put the grass and trees and all plants growing on the ground *after*
the fish and sea creatures. Put the flying creatures after the land
creatures. Put the lights in the sky before any of the life in water.
Or are the rules designed like this:
Tell the story of origins by retelling what
everybody at that time already thought. Make
it indistinguishable from what an ancient
middle eastern priest would write on his own.
In which case, I have to agree that Genesis 1 does a perfectly
fine job of that.
Tom S.
P.S. Although, I still have to say that, among all of those rules
of purity in Leviticus and elsewhere, it might have been nice to
put in something which would have been of interest to women, for
example for midwives. Something like, "Remember to wash your hands
with soap and water when attending to the mother."
Nowhere Man
> I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> rules are:
>
> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> already have strange beliefs.
> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> will understand.
>
> Simple enough?
And the winner is...
drum roll...
Frank Reichenbacher for his posting the Genesis account - the best and
most accurate explanation of our origins that all people can
understand. Thank you for time and participation. I hope we all
learned a valuable lesson.
NM
Mark VandeWettering
He obviously slept with the judge, since the Bible isn't even vaguely
accurate.
> Thank you for time and participation. I hope we all
> learned a valuable lesson.
I wouldn't classify what we learned as valuable.
Mark
> NM
catshark
wrote:
That you understand neither Genesis nor science?
<Shrug> That has been obvious for some time and is hardly "valuable".
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Man was made at the end of the week's work
when God was tired.
-- Mark Twain --
John Harshman
Nowhere Man wrote:
Nope, knew it already. The lesson being that you are confused. Your rule
three essentially invalidated all entries that attempted to give a
correct account, since that would involve teaching new knowledge to the
ignorant. If you think Genesis says nothing about what actually
happened, fine, it can win (and I would agree with you). But if you
think it's a correct guide to events (as you do), it violates rule 3. Do
you ever actually think about the meaning of what you post?
Steve B.
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1ftauwk.n1ubgn1rskdeyN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
I don't know. To tell you the truth, I've always been impressed by the Genesis
account. Your story has much more detail that the Genesis account, but if you
reduce it to the same level of detail and length, and exchange the Powers that
Be" with God, it will look a *lot* like yours. Why do you think that is?
Steve
gen2rev
Why is it the best? It's certainly not accurate, and he didn't even
write it, so it violates rule number 1.
> Thank you for time and participation. I hope we all
> learned a valuable lesson.
Was the lesson the fact that you're prepared to ignore your own rules?
> NM
Bigdakine
>Date: 4/11/03 4:42 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <1ftava3.9fhkx31pfr6i7N%john.w...@bigpond.com>
Right, and I thought at first, thats what NW was asking for.
>
>Beside, NN did not specify a science text, but a narrative of what
>happened (to the best of our present knowledge) that is factually
>correct and comprehensible to the Semitic goat herders of the late
>Neolithic early Bronze Age.
>>
>> I understood the Nowhere's request to be explain this stuff in book the
>> size of Genesis such that it imparts comprehension of fundamental science.
>>
>> All due respect to John, its woefully inadequate in that respect. And I'm
>> sure it wasn't intended to be adequate either. But he may have a future as
>> a religion creator (lord knows they make more money than a philosopher)
>
>I have often given it some thought - the money would be useful, and the
>babes... but no, I lack that deep penetrating stare that religious
>frauds^Hprophets have to have.
>
>But I object to the preceding paragraph. "Fundamental science" is not
>even taught in undergraduate textbooks.
Well if you mean by fundamental, teaching how mass is acquired by through the
Higgs boson, I agree with you. But if you mean teaching basic concepts of mass,
energy, equations of motion and electormagnetism, then I disagree with you.
>>
>> I believe Nowhere's attempted argument, was that since we can't explain
>> all that shit either in a book the size of Genesis, what are we
>> complaining about?
>>
>> Ergo, IMHO, one cannot give an adequate history of the universe which
>> imparts a fundamental understading of science in a book the size of
>> geneisis.
>>
>> Of course what constitues *adequate* is open to debate.
>>
>Yes. I think you are overloading NN's requirements, here.
As I realized soon after I wrote that post, I didn't flash on requirement #3.
boikat
> And the winner is...
Yes. In order to comply with rule "3", you are stuck with either telling a
fairy tale, or telling them nothing.
Boikat
>
> NM
>
Mark VandeWettering
In other words, Genesis!
Mark
> Boikat
Walter Bushell
Except most living things don't have blood.
--
We have met the enemy and he is us. --Walt Kelly
Walter
AC
> most accurate explanation of our origins that all people can
> understand. Thank you for time and participation. I hope we all
> learned a valuable lesson.
No, the Genesis account is not accurate, not without contorting it so much
that it no longer resembles the creation myth of the bronze age people who
actually wrote and believed it. It isn't surprising, in my opinion, that no
one can write an accurate account of how things actually came to be that any
Bronze Age individual could understand. As we can see from this very
newsgroup, there are an enormous number of people today who can't understand
what really happened.
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
_AnonCoward_
news:1ftbbtc.tt71y11krw8tvN%pr...@panix.com...
Agreed. Change that to read: "And all things that are alive are related
to all other living things."
_AnonCoward_
Oh, silly me. And here I thought this was a legitimate exercise. I
should have guessed the deck was stacked. My bad.
John Wilkins
Because I consciously used language that mirrored English versions of
Genesis, of course. However, the context and narrative structure of the
scientific account of the history of the universe is entirely different
to Genesis. In fact, if you reduce both accounts to a sequential point
list of events, Genesis will *not* look much like the other at all. Why
do you suppose this is?
TomS
<1ftd4i6.1v1al9m102l2mfN%john.w...@bigpond.com>, john.w...@bigpond.com
stated..."
>
>Steve B. <s...@ccp.com> wrote:
[...snip...]
>>I don't know. To tell you the truth, I've always been impressed by the Genesis
>> account. Your story has much more detail that the Genesis account, but if you
>>reduce it to the same level of detail and length, and exchange the Powers that
>> Be" with God, it will look a *lot* like yours. Why do you think that is?
>>
>Because I consciously used language that mirrored English versions of
>Genesis, of course. However, the context and narrative structure of the
>scientific account of the history of the universe is entirely different
>to Genesis. In fact, if you reduce both accounts to a sequential point
>list of events, Genesis will *not* look much like the other at all. Why
>do you suppose this is?
To get specific about it, there are these *major* differences between
Genesis 1 (taken as a literal, historical, scientific account of the order
of the first appearances of certain things) and the modern scientific
account (whether or not you accept the scientific account, you must
admit that it is greatly different).
First of all, there are differences in the order of events. Genesis
1 has the sun, moon and stars (the lights in the firmament) as appearing
*after* the earth and plant life on earth. Science tells us (again,
whether or not it is right, this is what it tells us) that the sun and
other stars were there *before* the earth, and certainly before the
appearance of plants on earth. (Plants growing without sunlight being
a particularly jarring idea to science.) Genesis 1 has flying animals
appearing before land animals. Science has it the other way. Genesis
1 has grasses and fruit trees appearing before land animals, science
has these plants as being rather late.
Second, there are major events in the world of life on earth which
are missing from the account of Genesis 1. Most startingly, there is
no mention in Genesis 1 (or anywhere else in the Bible) of the biggest
part of the world of life, the microbes. Bacteria and other
micro-scopic life forms are the majority of life by any measure,
by numbers, by volume and mass, by the variety of forms and where
they live (from hot springs to deep in the earth), and by their
importance to us (both as diseases and as beneficial forms). But
they do not rate one word in the entire Bible. Also, there is no
mention made of the major extinctions of life, such as the
disappearance of the trilobites and of the dinosaurs; which,
according to science (again, whether or not it is right, it is
telling us something different from Genesis 1), took place before
the appearance of the first humans; and is thus missing from
their proper place in the sequence.
Finally, there is at least one major feature of Genesis 1 which
has no place in science, the "firmament", separating the waters above,
and holding the lights in the sky.
Maybe science has got it all wrong, but there is no way that
anyone can claim that science agrees with Genesis 1, provided that
one takes Genesis 1 as being a literal, historical, scientific
account of a distinct order of first appearances. Not the same
order, and missing (and including) major differences. I don't
see how they could be more different. At least, not if they are
talking about the same things (which, most likely, they aren't).
Of course, the biggest puzzle of all is why anyone would want
to claim that Genesis 1 has something in common with modern
scientific theories, when it is obvious that these theories were
developed independently of, and sometimes in opposition to,
simple belief in Genesis 1. If the sequence were really the same,
why is it that only in the 20th century did people realize what
the Genesis 1 sequence "really" was? If this sequence is so
important for faith, why were people kept in the dark for so
many centuries? Who knows what we may yet discover is the "real"
meaning of Genesis 1? Maybe it "really" means "life began on
Mars"? Under these "rules" of interpretation, anything is
possible, including even ... shudder ... "Darwin was right".
Tom S.
Matt Silberstein
<s...@ccp.com>:
[snip]
>I don't know. To tell you the truth, I've always been impressed by the Genesis
>account. Your story has much more detail that the Genesis account, but if you
>reduce it to the same level of detail and length, and exchange the Powers that
>Be" with God, it will look a *lot* like yours. Why do you think that is?
Not at all. Genesis 1 explains how God made the things in the
world. It explains how the Sun and Moon and such are not powers
themselves, they are made by God. Genesis 1 explains how the
world is good. None of this, which I suspect is the point of
Genesis 1, appears in John's story.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.
db
>
> I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> rules are:
>
> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> already have strange beliefs.
> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> will understand.
>
> Simple enough?
>
> NM
What kind of "game" is that?
--
"These ruling families rely on their national economic weight; the
corruption and compliance it can purchase, including within broad
layers of the working class; their massive military might; their
monopoly of state power; and both legal and extralegal violence
against those who resist their exploitation and oppression."
http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6545/654520.html
Frank J
Unfortunately, that is not an explanation, in that it does not answer
"how," or even "when." But given its eloquence, I decided to find out
what explanation is really preferred by the people who are most
inspired by the spirit of the Genesis account. It turns out that the
overwhelming winner is the mainstream science explanation, you know,
the one that includes evolution and holds that the first life on earth
appeared about 3.8 billion years ago.
Then again, a non-explanation is preferable to anti-evolutionists
these days, as it frees them from having to admit that at least some
of the mutually-contradictory anti-evolution positions must be
incorrect.
Frank J
> "Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cb65864a.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
> > life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> > rules are:
> >
> > 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> > uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> > 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
> > already have strange beliefs.
> > 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> > that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
> > will understand.
> >
> > Simple enough?
> >
> >
>
>
> The stories I submitted are as follows:
>
> Hopi Origin Myth
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/hopi/toth/toth_001.htm
>
> King James Version, Holy Bible, Genesis Chapter 1
> http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+1&language=english&ver
> sion=KJV
>
> King James Version, Holy Bible, Genesis Chapter 2
> http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+2&language=english&ver
> sion=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on
>
> Ainu Creation Myth
> http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/miranda.htm
>
> Hungarian Creation Myth
> http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/oberon.htm#HUNGARIAN
>
> They are all myths.
>
> Frank
Ah, but to an IDC they can all be true, even though they are mutually
contradictory. Heck, their "theory" can even, in Dembski's words,
"accommodate all the results of Darwinism." Ain't postmodernism fun?
Nantko Schanssema
db <d...@nospamfor.me>:
>Nowhere Man wrote:
>>
>> I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story
>> explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land
>> life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
>> rules are:
>>
>> 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
>> uneducated tribe of people can understand.
>> 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may
>> already have strange beliefs.
>> 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
>> that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they
>> will understand.
>>
>> Simple enough?
>>
>> NM
>
>What kind of "game" is that?
Fair game.
regards,
Nantko
--
Yield to temptation; it may not pass your way again.
(Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love)
Walter Bushell
Why are Bibles sold in the non-Fiction section of bookstores?
Walter Bushell
I would think "Aphrodite did it" would be more accurate than Genesis.
The world looks a lot more like Aphrodite created it than Yahuwaho.
Walter Bushell
> Nowhere Man wrote:
>
<Snip>
> Do
> you ever actually think about the meaning of what you post?
What fun would that be?
Martin Crisp
(in message <1ftd6lw.1x74g1d54stn7N%pr...@panix.com>):
Non/Fiction describes what the author(s) intend the content to be,
not what the content manages to be.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
PGP Fingerprint to be provided when I finish rebuilding my mail &
news client's settings <grr>
Mark Isaak
(Nowhere Man) wrote:
>
>And the winner is...
>
>Frank Reichenbacher for his posting the Genesis account - the best and
>most accurate explanation of our origins that all people can
>understand. Thank you for time and participation.
By "accurate", you must mean "just plain wrong." Surely you know that
Genesis, interpreted as a scientific account, is a lie.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.
Andrew Arensburger
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 8:43:31 +1000, Walter Bushell wrote
> (in message <1ftd6lw.1x74g1d54stn7N%pr...@panix.com>):
> Non/Fiction describes what the author(s) intend the content to be,
> not what the content manages to be.
Is that why most bookstores lump fantasy and SF together?
Because so many writers try to have elements of both?
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Militant Agnostic--I don't know and you don't either!
John Wilkins
> Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 8:43:31 +1000, Walter Bushell wrote
> > (in message <1ftd6lw.1x74g1d54stn7N%pr...@panix.com>):
> >> Why are Bibles sold in the non-Fiction section of bookstores?
>
> > Non/Fiction describes what the author(s) intend the content to be,
> > not what the content manages to be.
>
> Is that why most bookstores lump fantasy and SF together?
> Because so many writers try to have elements of both?
No, it's because Real Science Fiction died sometime in the 80s when
publishers decided that fanstasy was a much bigger market...
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
David Jensen
<0001HW.BAC08168...@news.ozemail.com.au>:
My B&N tends to have such sections as self-help, new age, religion,
Bible, mythology fairly close to each other. Fiction is far away.
David Jensen
<1ftgbeo.1ewejuy1icuakeN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>:
My local library has a regular fiction section, a mystery section, and a
science fiction section. Fantasy stories have cute little (unicorn?)
stickers on them and are usually in the fiction section, though a few
are in SF -- including splitting a Turtledove series between the two.
About two-thirds of the Dick Francis novels are in the mystery section,
but the rest, including copies of those in the mystery section, are in
the fiction section. They haven't figured out how to cross distribute
mystery and science fiction, yet (though if they had Asimov's _Murder at
the ABA_, it probably would be in SF).
Andrew Arensburger
> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>> Is that why most bookstores lump fantasy and SF together?
>> Because so many writers try to have elements of both?
> No, it's because Real Science Fiction died sometime in the 80s when
> publishers decided that fanstasy was a much bigger market...
Last I checked, Greg Egan was still writing and getting
published. And I'm pretty sure some of the Hal Clement stuff on my
bookshelf was written in the 1990s. I'm told that William Gibson's
latest is pretty good.
(Personally, I'd consider Enron's holdings reports and such to
be science fiction, since AFAIK they stop short of actual out-and-out
magic. If you concur, then you'll probably have to admit that SF is
alive and well. But I'll grant that this is a gray area.)
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
"One ring to rule them all. Occupancy by more than 3e16 persons is unlawful"
-- "The Fellowship of the Ringworld"
Harlequin
news:b7h48c$cai$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu:
> John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
>> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>>> Is that why most bookstores lump fantasy and SF together?
>>> Because so many writers try to have elements of both?
>
>> No, it's because Real Science Fiction died sometime in the 80s when
>> publishers decided that fanstasy was a much bigger market...
>
> Last I checked, Greg Egan was still writing and getting
> published. And I'm pretty sure some of the Hal Clement stuff on my
> bookshelf was written in the 1990s. I'm told that William Gibson's
> latest is pretty good.
>
> (Personally, I'd consider Enron's holdings reports and such to
> be science fiction, since AFAIK they stop short of actual out-and-out
> magic. If you concur, then you'll probably have to admit that SF is
> alive and well. But I'll grant that this is a gray area.)
I am sure that SF&F pros will no like the suggestion.
So are you suggesting that Enron get a Hugo rocket? How many words
did the holding reports actually have? The standards are
7,499 or less are a short story, 7,500 to 17,499 are a novelette,
17,500 to 39,000 are a novella, and 40,000 or more words make it
a novel. (The people administrating the Hugo are allowed to relocate
to another category if the difference is the lesser of 5,000 words or
20%.) (I am assuming no major changes in the rules since the 1998
Worldcon since I am looking at the Hugo rules published in the
copy of the World Science Fiction Society constitution in its book.)
Fortunately for the dignaty of the SF&F community the deadline
for nominating a work published in 2002 was March 31. :-)
Those who wish to nominate any 2003 reports must join the 2003
Worldcon or the 2004 Worldcon by January 31.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
Walter Bushell
Actually the bookstore puts the book where they think it will optimize
the profits of the bookstore.
Telling people that you think the Bible is fiction is bad for sales.
And as for Hubard's "science fiction", from what I heard it's the same
as his theology. 'Corse if he still has a theology, it's probably
differnt from what he taught whilst alive. :^)(
Mark VandeWettering
The people that buy them won't be looking there.
You won't find the Koran or the Vedas there either.
Mark
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
> > Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote:
> >> Is that why most bookstores lump fantasy and SF together?
> >> Because so many writers try to have elements of both?
>
> > No, it's because Real Science Fiction died sometime in the 80s when
> > publishers decided that fanstasy was a much bigger market...
>
> Last I checked, Greg Egan was still writing and getting
> published. And I'm pretty sure some of the Hal Clement stuff on my
> bookshelf was written in the 1990s. I'm told that William Gibson's
> latest is pretty good.
>
> (Personally, I'd consider Enron's holdings reports and such to
> be science fiction, since AFAIK they stop short of actual out-and-out
> magic. If you concur, then you'll probably have to admit that SF is
> alive and well. But I'll grant that this is a gray area.)
There are still remnants - Tim Powers strikes me as a nice example - but
the genre died when it was elevated from the gutter and it was interred
when Stephen Donaldson started to sell (for reasons that still escape
me).
Martin Crisp
(in message <1ftf4qz.kkw029xgdmmjN%pr...@panix.com>):
> Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 8:43:31 +1000, Walter Bushell wrote
>> (in message <1ftd6lw.1x74g1d54stn7N%pr...@panix.com>):
[...]
>>> Why are Bibles sold in the non-Fiction section of bookstores?
>>
>> Non/Fiction describes what the author(s) intend the content to be,
>> not what the content manages to be.
>
> Actually the bookstore puts the book where they think it will optimize
> the profits of the bookstore.
<grumbles about the always-reorganising bookstore in town...>
Are you sure?
> Telling people that you think the Bible is fiction is bad for sales.
I've not actually noticed where the bibles are in any bookstores
hereabouts. [They aren't in the 'reference' or 'computer' sections,
nor in the SF&F area with all the other stuff about gods and magic.
Maybe the gardening section? It mentions a garden, doesn't it?]
> And as for Hubard's "science fiction", from what I heard it's the same
> as his theology. 'Corse if he still has a theology, it's probably
> differnt from what he taught whilst alive. :^)(
Not familiar with either his theology or science fiction.
Have Fun
Martin [wanders off to play NetHack, #prays to Venus]
Andrew Arensburger
>> > No, it's because Real Science Fiction died sometime in the 80s when
>> > publishers decided that fanstasy was a much bigger market...
>>
>> Last I checked, Greg Egan was still writing and getting
>> published. And I'm pretty sure some of the Hal Clement stuff on my
>> bookshelf was written in the 1990s. I'm told that William Gibson's
>> latest is pretty good.
> There are still remnants - Tim Powers strikes me as a nice example
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about unambiguous SF.
Personally, I would put Powers right in that gray area between SF and
fantasy.
> - but
> the genre died when it was elevated from the gutter and it was interred
> when Stephen Donaldson started to sell (for reasons that still escape
> me).
(If you ever catch those reasons, please show them to me. I
used to keep a copy of "Lord Foul's Bane" on my dashboard, to read
during traffic jams while commuting. After about 50 pages, I decided
I'd rather be bored in traffic than continue reading.)
While I'm saddened by the metastasis of the "based on a TV
show/movie/game/whatever" section and the increasing difficulty that
merely average-to-good writers have getting published, I keep
discovering new (and good) books and writers. So, to reuse[1] a line
from http://www.paulgraham.com/quotes.html, SF doesn't look any deader
than usual to me.
[1] As in "code reuse," since the site belongs to a programmer.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Lose weight: leave Mesklin.
Andrew Arensburger
> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in
> news:b7h48c$cai$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu:
>> (Personally, I'd consider Enron's holdings reports and such to
>> be science fiction
> I am sure that SF&F pros will no like the suggestion.
> So are you suggesting that Enron get a Hugo rocket? How many words
> did the holding reports actually have? The standards are
> 7,499 or less are a short story, 7,500 to 17,499 are a novelette,
> 17,500 to 39,000 are a novella, and 40,000 or more words make it
> a novel.
Why don't we just nominate the entire Enron debacle, including
press coverage, under "Dramatic Presentation"?
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
I'm so hungry, I could eat a... wait! Come back!
Harlequin
> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in
>> news:b7h48c$cai$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu:
>>> (Personally, I'd consider Enron's holdings reports and such to
>>> be science fiction
> [...]
>> I am sure that SF&F pros will no like the suggestion.
My typo: ...not like...
>> So are you suggesting that Enron get a Hugo rocket? How many words
>> did the holding reports actually have? The standards are
>> 7,499 or less are a short story, 7,500 to 17,499 are a novelette,
>> 17,500 to 39,000 are a novella, and 40,000 or more words make it
>> a novel.
>
> Why don't we just nominate the entire Enron debacle, including
> press coverage, under "Dramatic Presentation"?
Ignoring that nomination deadline has pasted...
There is precident for that. The press coverage for Apollo 11
won the DP Hugo in 1970.
And the rules were changed to explicately allow "related subjects"
to win the DP in the Bucconeer Business Meeting in 1998.
K-Man
Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote:
> > - but
> > the genre died when it was elevated from the gutter and it was interred
> > when Stephen Donaldson started to sell (for reasons that still escape
> > me).
>
> (If you ever catch those reasons, please show them to me. I
> used to keep a copy of "Lord Foul's Bane" on my dashboard, to read
> during traffic jams while commuting. After about 50 pages, I decided
> I'd rather be bored in traffic than continue reading.)
Your reaction was a bit milder than mine. 30 pages in I decided I would
gouge out my own eyes if that was what it took to keep me from having to
read any farther. ;-)
> While I'm saddened by the metastasis of the "based on a TV
> show/movie/game/whatever" section and the increasing difficulty that
> merely average-to-good writers have getting published, I keep
> discovering new (and good) books and writers. So, to reuse[1] a line
> from http://www.paulgraham.com/quotes.html, SF doesn't look any deader
> than usual to me.
Gardner Dozois covers the "Science Fiction is Dead" mantra every year in
his "Year in Review" introduction in _The Year's Best Science Fiction_.
SF has been "dying" for quite a while now.
BTW, I can't recommend Dozois's _Year's Best SF_ highly enough. His
story choices have never disappointed me, and I've discovered at least
one new great author each year, sometimes more than one. (My first
exposure to Greg Egan, Terry Bisson, and Connie Willis was in YBSF.) He
doesn't exclusively pick Hard SF stories, so died in the wool
Hard-SF-or-Death fans would probably not enjoy it as much as they would
Hartwell's _Year's Best_, but if your tastes are more eclectic, Dozois's
collection is worth seeking out.
Ken
gen2rev
>
> In article <b7i7cr$13c$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>,
> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> > > - but
> > > the genre died when it was elevated from the gutter and it was interred
> > > when Stephen Donaldson started to sell (for reasons that still escape
> > > me).
> >
> > (If you ever catch those reasons, please show them to me. I
> > used to keep a copy of "Lord Foul's Bane" on my dashboard, to read
> > during traffic jams while commuting. After about 50 pages, I decided
> > I'd rather be bored in traffic than continue reading.)
>
> Your reaction was a bit milder than mine. 30 pages in I decided I would
> gouge out my own eyes if that was what it took to keep me from having to
> read any farther. ;-)
Um, I have to admit that I liked it... 8)
>
> > While I'm saddened by the metastasis of the "based on a TV
> > show/movie/game/whatever" section and the increasing difficulty that
> > merely average-to-good writers have getting published, I keep
> > discovering new (and good) books and writers. So, to reuse[1] a line
> > from http://www.paulgraham.com/quotes.html, SF doesn't look any deader
> > than usual to me.
>
> Gardner Dozois covers the "Science Fiction is Dead" mantra every year in
> his "Year in Review" introduction in _The Year's Best Science Fiction_.
> SF has been "dying" for quite a while now.
>
> BTW, I can't recommend Dozois's _Year's Best SF_ highly enough. His
> story choices have never disappointed me, and I've discovered at least
> one new great author each year, sometimes more than one. (My first
> exposure to Greg Egan, Terry Bisson, and Connie Willis was in YBSF.) He
> doesn't exclusively pick Hard SF stories, so died in the wool
> Hard-SF-or-Death fans would probably not enjoy it as much as they would
> Hartwell's _Year's Best_, but if your tastes are more eclectic, Dozois's
> collection is worth seeking out.
I'll keep this in mind.
> Ken
Steve B.
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1ftd4i6.1v1al9m102l2mfN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> Steve B. <s...@ccp.com> wrote:
>
> > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:1ftauwk.n1ubgn1rskdeyN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > Steve B. <s...@ccp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:1ft8tbh.12rkm5s1cfeqr9N%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> > > > > Nowhere Man <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short
story
> > > > > > explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life,
land
> > > > > > life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The
> > > > > > rules are:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and
> > > > > > uneducated tribe of people can understand.
> > > > > > 2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and
may
> > > > > > already have strange beliefs.
> > > > > > 3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story
> > > > > > that they don't already know but must write the story using terms
they
> > > > > > will understand.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simple enough?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In the beginning all was compressed and without form. Then for reasons
> > > > > known only to the Powers that Be, it grew and grew until everything
was
> > > > > spread throughout the heavens. It is in the nature of things to move
> > > > > together, and so the mists of heaven fell together and became globes
> > > > > that, if they were big enough, began to shine, and around them in
paths
> > > > > of circles moved smaller globes. In all the many uncountable stars one
> > > > > globe became the world, and as it cooled from being made, water
formed,
> > > > > and dry lands, and life began from the elements of the earth.
> > > > >
> > > > > First were the simple things that could make food from rock and the
> > > > > elements of the earth, and from the light of the sun. Then out of them
> > > > > came more complex things, which took food of other livign things as
> > > > > well. Then the complex things joined together, and those that joined
> > > > > well lived and bore offspring, while those that joined poorly bore
less
> > > > > offspring. Thus did more and more complex living things - plants and
> > > > > animals and fungi and the scum of the pond all come to be.
> > > > >
> > > > > Each living thing reproduced after its kind, and so when changes added
> > > > > up, the kinds changed so that the number of kinds multiplied, and
filled
> > > > > the earth from the highest mountain and the clouds of the air, to the
> > > > > deepest ocean and the rocks beneath the mountains. And yet, there were
> > > > > no people, but only things that lived in the water, the mother of all
> > > > > life.
> > > > >
> > > > > There came to be fish that could breath the air and plants that could
> > > > > grow in it, and so they moved over time from living partly in water
and
> > > > > partly on land, so that there came to be things that lived on dry land
> > > > > alone, and things that stayed partly in water and partly on land, and
> > > > > things that lived only in water, fresh and briny, as it still is
today.
> > > > >
> > > > > Living creatures on land, like living things in water, changed their
> > > > > kinds too, and so some changed in ways that made them able to live in
> > > > > trees, and some lived on the plains, and some lived in the cold parts
of
> > > > > the earth where snow and ice remain, The Powers that Be may think this
> > > > > is good, but life merely lived, and strove to exist, in all the places
> > > > > where it went.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some living things changed to grow fur and some to grow feathers, so
to
> > > > > keep themselves warm when it was cold, for it is hard to stay warm,
and
> > > > > takes much food to keep the inner fires of living things going. Those
> > > > > that grew fur also fed their offspring milk from their teats, while
> > > > > those that grew feathers laid eggs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some feathered kinds had longer and stronger feathers, which were
turned
> > > > > to many tasks, and eventually allowed them to fly, as other creatures
> > > > > had before them without feathers, but with skin stretched between
their
> > > > > fingers, as bats came also to do later, though they have fur and feed
> > > > > their young milk.
> > > > >
> > > > > And furry animals grew and changed kinds so that some lived on the
> > > > > grassy plains when grass became a kind, and others lived in the trees
> > > > > and fed on leaves and fruit. Some of the tree living fruit eating
> > > > > animals changed to have fingers in the place of their forefeet, and
they
> > > > > changed their kinds, and monkeys and apes came to be.
> > > > >
> > > > > And one ape lived in a dry time in a place away from the homes of its
> > > > > ancestors, and so some were born that could walk on the hind legs
only,
> > > > > and see the lions and hyenas and other predators of the grassy plains.
> > > > > And with its hands free, it tamed fire, and learned to make axes and
> > > > > knives and spears, and lived together in great tribes, and to talk
> > > > > properly, and not like the messages other animals send which are
always
> > > > > the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > And this was the ape known as people. And the evening and the morning
> > > > > were the 4 and one half billionth year of the globe we call the world.
> > > > >
> > > > > And the human ape saw that it was as good a life as any, and got on
with
> > > > > it...
> > > >
> > > > Please come back next week when Reverend Wilkins will the deliver the
> > sermon,
> > > > "Planet of the Ape-Men". The collection plate will be passed before and
> > after
> > > > the delivery.
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > >
> > > I was just following the Rules that Nowhere Man set... it seems to me
> > > relatively easy to explain the origins of the universe according to what
> > > actually happened in language that might have been understood in
> > > 2000BCE; if that is what you wanted to do and you knew the truth of it.
> > > Of course, thological interpretations on the part of the redactor might
> > > add all kinds of political and other points (like covenants and
> > > relations between the High King deity and His Chosen People), but so
> > > long as the actual facts were correct, even if incomplete by logical
> > > necessity, the origin story would be considered as a good foundation for
> > > science.
> > >
> > > But it is not. Nothing in Genesis is correct except by accident, and a
> > > lot of it is simply incoherent - *if taken as a factual account*. And
> > > that is the point - Genesis is *not* a factual account of the origin of
> > > the world and of life; so if it has deep significance, it is not as the
> > > basis for science. If it were correct in the way I show above, then that
> > > would also be a good basis for claiming it as true revelation, by the
> > > way. Instead, it must be read as the theological tradition from which at
> > > least three modern religions sprang.
> >
> > I don't know. To tell you the truth, I've always been impressed by the
Genesis
> > account. Your story has much more detail that the Genesis account, but if
you
> > reduce it to the same level of detail and length, and exchange the Powers
that
> > Be" with God, it will look a *lot* like yours. Why do you think that is?
> >
> Genesis, of course. However, the context and narrative structure of the
> scientific account of the history of the universe is entirely different
> to Genesis. In fact, if you reduce both accounts to a sequential point
> list of events, Genesis will *not* look much like the other at all. Why
> do you suppose this is?
GENESIS
a. Heaven, Earth (formless)
b. Light (also separated light from darkness)
c. Expanse (separated water below from water above)
d. Seas, Dry Land
e. Vegitation (seed-bearing plants, fruit trees)
f. Sun, Moon, Stars
g. Water Creatures, Winged Creatures
h. Wild Animals, Livestock, Ground-Moving Creatures
i. Man
WILKINS
a. Natural Laws, Big Bang, Stars, Planets, Earth, Water, Dry Land
b. Water Life, Single-Celled Life, Multi-Celled Life, Plants, Animals, Fungi,
Pong Scum
c. Land Fish & Plants
d. Mammals, Reptiles
e. Birds, Bats
f. Herbavores, Monkeys, Apes
g. Man
The Bible covered details that you didn't touch on and visa versa. If we reduce
the lists to coordinating details and compare, we get something like this:
GENESIS WILKINS
Earth Stars
Light Light
Water Sun
Dry Land Moon
Plants Earth
Sun Water
Moon Dry Land
Stars Water Life
Water Life Plants
Winged Life Land Life
Land Life Winged Life
Man Man
I'll admit there's a few discrepancies between the two stories.
Steve
Walter Bushell
<Snip>
> <grumbles about the always-reorganising bookstore in town...>
> Are you sure?
Making people go looking for what they want, exposes them to other stuff
they might buy on impulse, Marketering 100.
Andy Groves
That's because you're an Unbeliever.
Andy
John Wilkins
You also left out mechanisms - God makes things without forebears. Also,
small universe, one habitable location.
>
> WILKINS
>
> a. Natural Laws, Big Bang, Stars, Planets, Earth, Water, Dry Land
> b. Water Life, Single-Celled Life, Multi-Celled Life, Plants, Animals,
> Fungi, Pong Scum
> c. Land Fish & Plants
> d. Mammals, Reptiles
> e. Birds, Bats
> f. Herbavores, Monkeys, Apes
> g. Man
Mechanisms: adaptation by selection, coalescence of stars and planets,
orbits, large universe
>
> The Bible covered details that you didn't touch on and visa versa. If we
> reduce the lists to coordinating details and compare, we get something
> like this:
>
> GENESIS WILKINS
>
> Earth Stars
> Light Light
> Water Sun
> Dry Land Moon
> Plants Earth
> Sun Water
> Moon Dry Land
> Stars Water Life
> Water Life Plants
> Winged Life Land Life
> Land Life Winged Life
> Man Man
>
> I'll admit there's a few discrepancies between the two stories.
A *few*? Stars and sun and moon come *after* life? Also, note that I
explicitly said that only *one* of the many kinds was Man. The Bible
account has Man as the summation of all that went before. The
dissimilarities are many, and enough to dismiss Genesis as anything but
accidentally correct, as I noted.
>
> Steve
Wade Hines
And the Golden rule, he who wears the white gold makes the rules.
John Wilkins
> In article <b7i7cr$13c$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>,
> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> > > - but
> > > the genre died when it was elevated from the gutter and it was interred
> > > when Stephen Donaldson started to sell (for reasons that still escape
> > > me).
> >
> > (If you ever catch those reasons, please show them to me. I
> > used to keep a copy of "Lord Foul's Bane" on my dashboard, to read
> > during traffic jams while commuting. After about 50 pages, I decided
> > I'd rather be bored in traffic than continue reading.)
>
> Your reaction was a bit milder than mine. 30 pages in I decided I would
> gouge out my own eyes if that was what it took to keep me from having to
> read any farther. ;-)
I took the easy route, and gave myself a supraorbital prefrontal
lobotomy. I then read the remaining 5 volumes of the series, waiting for
something to happen. Nothing did.