Dinosaurs may not be as ancient as we think

The entire project of attacking, undermining, spreading confusion about evolution is based on, funded by and promoted by religious fundamentalists who can't stand that some theory of natural selection has more explanatory success than their antiquarian hokum. In doing so, they make people take sides on an issue that really shouldn't be an issue and end up making people doubt and even abandon religion more.

Post 113. Yours. Discusses dinosaurs on Noah’s ark.

That is religion presented as science, which it surely isn’t. As I said, I do care about that.

Many years ago, I studied religion with a great deal on interest. I don’t care about it so much now. But, when folks bring it up, as you did, I am prepared.

You may believe in your g-d and even your Bible with no objection from me. When you push your dogma into the realm of science, I’m not gonna watch in silence.

Your discussions about energy reminds me of some garbage I read in 1980 in a book by Henry Morris. I probably still have the book. I’m like that about sources of knowledge and sources of anti-knowledge.

I did not bring up energy. Nor sun worship. Better reread the posts.

Anything we believe is true; we should welcome examination; facts can only be confirmed; they will not fade with time. Bringing religion to diminish points of view isn't standing on the science; that is simply prejudiced in action.

Religion, indeed, is not standing on science. Religion serves only to diminish the point of view of those who build their case on evidence.

I recall seeing such a post and also recall pointing out that it is not science.

I have long suggested that ancient myths record ancient human memories of events that science can confirm did take place. For example, Adam’s curse when he was expelled from Eden accurately reflects changes in the nature of work that accompanied the rise of agriculture. The myth records a human memory of the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution, as it would be named in the twentieth century. See V. Gordon Childe, Man Makes Himself (1936).

That does not mean there is science in the myth.

Be specific 

Scripture deals with written words and from there there isn’t any updates to adjust it to take into account something newly learned. Which is not true of science it must adjust because we learned something new that showed us we were wrong about something.

The truth about any topic stands on the truthfulness of the topic not if it was found in scriptures or science. To dismiss either source simply because of the source is ignoring topic and looking for a reason to reject a discussion without even taking on the topic honestly.

The OT scriptures were oral tradition long before they were written. The key passages in Genesis regarding the flood are similar to, and younger than, the story in the Gilgamesh Epic. Have you read it?

https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

No, have not read it, but the point of it is? I'm sure there are a lot of stories that are similar in nature to the other text because shared past tends to keep the stories the same, but the more it is spread simply by word of mouth the more the telling changes. I take it you are leaving God out of the equation?

If God inspired Genesis, he’s a plagiarist. Ever since the translation of the Gilgamesh Epic, folks clinging to literal and local (Hebrew) understanding of the story of Noah have been forced into willed ignorance.

Gilgamesh Epic was translated in the nineteenth century and confirmed some of the claims of the so-called German criticism of the Pentateuch. It is now well understood that the Five Books of Moses proceed from four distinct traditions. 

God would be the only one who knew the how and why since humanity wasn’t there for the early days of creation.

The idea that some guy named Moses actually sat down and wrote five huge scrolls of stuff is way beyond the brainpower needed to believe that the universe is a construction of laws of physics and matter or that animals came to be what they are by natural selection.

If you want to make that claim, then you must follow the logic of your argument to its conclusion. God gifted these stories to the Sumerians before he gave them to Moses. 

It was a shared history to the beginning of the human race; it got handed down; in addition to that, as near as I can tell, Moses was the one God told; what Adam and Eve knew about the time before they were created isn't recorded so it isn't known.

And yet, there is a record of the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution in the religious texts. Of course, humanity endured as hunter-gatherers for millions of years prior.

I can't take anyone who thinks Adam & Eve were actual people seriously.

Geneticists have identified a mitochondrial “Eve” and a Y-chromosomal “Adam”, but they never met.

Well, that's awkward.

So you say