• no banana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The Bible says something about the earth and how it is good and the filament of the sky and something. The Bible that is, at least that’s what I read on the internet. Many fine people on the internet, the best people, but not me, I haven’t said it, but the best people probably. The best people say the earth may be - and I’m not saying it is but they are saying it - they say that the earth may be flat and that doesn’t take much text to cover I have heard.

      • bigfish@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you squint a little, the 7 days of creation in Genesis are relativistic-ish. 1 day to separate light from darkness (photons at 1 microsecond after Big Bang), another to create the sky (opaque universe at 370k years), another to form dry land and create life (earth formed, 9.3 billion years, life at ~0.2by later), etc etc. Anyone with a physics degree able to say what fraction of light speed god must have been travelling to make this happen such that only days passed for them between these events?

      • MxM111@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are missing the point. The creation myths were considered complete. Nothing left to be known.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well yes, people who believe things that aren’t true won’t admit that they don’t know anything. I’m not sure why that’s relevant though.

          • MxM111@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You stated “this has been always true” to the statement that we have understanding that things are really complex and difficult to figure out. The answer to you was an example that there were times where we did not have such understanding.

          • no banana@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think their actual point was that incomplete explanations are nonetheless explanations. Still wrong though.

      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Deal if you show me the scientific texts that covered these in 500bc since you think we’ve always know how complex this is.

        • XIN@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If your point was that religions have oversimplified complex science to the point that people thought they fully grasped it, then I agree with you. Otherwise I have no idea what you are trying to say.