|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 01/05/2006 : 14:43:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
BTW Babel was 100 years after the flood.
Thanks for the correction. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 14:58:19 [Permalink]
|
| You are welcome and I expect you to do the same for me. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 16:35:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
So the finding of a 600 ft. barge up top Ararat that tests in at 5,000 years would turn a few of your heads?
...
1) It ain't there.
2) If it were it would be great, because I love mysterious new discoveries of any kind, but it wouldn't discredit all the physical evidence that no worldwide flood occurred. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 17:55:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
So the finding of a 600 ft. barge up top Ararat that tests in at 5,000 years would turn a few of your heads?
It would turn my head. What an amazing find. Of course, you have to realize that just because one thing in the bible is correct, it does not automatically follow that EVERYTHING in it is. Using that logic, one could say that we really have a man from Krypton walking among us.
quote:
Finding certain fossils in strata that should not be there fo ok too? But it would have to be a gross find and ample evidence to support it?
You are going to have to supply any evidence before it can be evaluated. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 18:44:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
Finding certain fossils in strata that should not be there fo ok too?
You're making a common mistake here. Evidence which would show the current theories of evolution to be incorrect in some way are not, by themselves, also evidence for the Genesis account of creation. They'd just be evidence against evolution.
No, to be able to "conclude Genesis" (at least the "young Earth" version), one not only has to show that biology, cosmology, astronomy, geology and several other -ologies are outright wrong, but one has to provide positive evidence for the Genesis account being correct, as well. And that's going to be quite a tall order given that God seems to be in the habit of moving the evidence around so it can't provide evidence of anything (cherubim, swords and a tree, for example).
Since the evidence for a world-wide Flood was seen to be lacking by Christian scientists 200 years ago, the Tree of Life has been removed, and there's no way to tell if rainbows are of recent origin, what's left? Got archeological evidence of a couple of burned-down sister cities, covered in a layer of sulphur, with a salt statue nearby? Genetic evidence that everyone on the planet is descended from one man and four women from 4,500 years ago? A pile of four-legged grasshopper fossils?
I'll admit to not knowing all of Genesis, so what else can be diagnostic for that book being true which at the same time eliminates the possibility of all other creation stories and current science? To "conclude Genesis," that's what is needed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 18:58:29 [Permalink]
|
| For those who claim to be bonafided Evolutionists. From an paleoanthropolical stand point what do you feel is the basis of accepting that we can from a protoape some 10 million years ago? Also do you believe that "naturalism" is NOT a religion? How do you define religion? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 19:37:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland...
For those who claim to be bonafided Evolutionists. From an paleoanthropolical stand point what do you feel is the basis of accepting that we can from a protoape some 10 million years ago?
I take it you're going to fall back on the ages old tactic of abandoning your claim that you can prove the existence of supernatural beings and that life has come to its present form by magic. I take it you don't have anything to go on but your interpretation of your book of myths. I take it that it doesn't matter to you in the least that no two people who do believe those myths are actually in reasonably full agreement on how to interpret the myths. I take it you feel some degree of success in supporting those myths by trying to find fault with the current widely accepted theory of evolution (or claiming that since it's beyond your intellectual ability to understand it must be false).
Go over to Talk Origins to find all the information you could ever need to support the reality of evolution. Evolution isn't something people "believe in" any more than people believe in electricity or gravity or weather. They happen. It's just how it is. Again, I refer you to Talk Origins for the necessary details.
The burden of proof is on you. You claim to be able to prove that the fable of Genesis is true. Prove it.
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 19:45:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
I agree! Let me rephrase the question. What evidence would prove Genesis?
What evidence do you have?
According to you your sites mission is:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
The mission of the site and museum can be summed up in these few words:
Examine Evidence
Conclude Genesis
And then you ask, "What would be the most convincing evidence against evolution?" If your approach is, "If not evolution, then Genesis", then I suspect that your site will contain nothing new. And as has been suggested by others, if there was evidence for Genesis it would have been used long ago. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 19:51:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
For those who claim to be bonafided Evolutionists. From an paleoanthropolical stand point what do you feel is the basis of accepting that we can from a protoape some 10 million years ago? Also do you believe that "naturalism" is NOT a religion? How do you define religion?
Why are you changing the subject? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 20:10:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
For those who claim to be bonafided Evolutionists. From an paleoanthropolical stand point what do you feel is the basis of accepting that we can from a protoape some 10 million years ago?
That question is mostly irrelevant when your task is to provide positive evidence that the book of Genesis is true, as has already been said in a few different ways now.quote:
Also do you believe that "naturalism" is NOT a religion? How do you define religion?
Let's take the second question first. How do I define religion? Informally, I define it as a shared set of beliefs which focus primarily on a "spiritual" existence and secondarily include tenets of morality, and which may include worship of one or more of some sort of super-human being.
Second, is "naturalism" a religion? Since it has nothing to say about anything "spiritual," nor does it proscribe morals, or involve worship of anything, the answer would have to be "no."
Of course, I'm fairly certain that these questions were preamble to an old argument, dealt with long ago. Do you have something new to say about naturalism, or were we going to be treated to a chorus of "teaching science in public schools is teaching the religion of naturalism, in violation of the First Amendment?"
I really, really want to see something new, John. Please don't disappoint me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 01:49:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
For those who claim to be bonafided Evolutionists. From an paleoanthropolical stand point what do you feel is the basis of accepting that we can from a protoape some 10 million years ago?
- Physical similarity of humans and apes
- Presence of intermediate fossils
- The similarity of the simian and human genome. Retroviruses etc.
quote:
Also do you believe that "naturalism" is NOT a religion? How do you define religion?
Philosophical Naturalism is the opposite of religion, which is Belief in a supernatural power or powers. Methodical Naturalism is indifferent to Religion. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 02:54:15 [Permalink]
|
What would be evidence for the universe, the solar system, Earth and life to be created as described in the Book of Genesis? Depends a little on how detailed the interpretation should be, and of what version of the Bible.
From KJV:
quote:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
How can this be supported with any evidence?
quote:
1:2 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.
What is this supposed to mean? That Earth as a planet did not yet exist and was therefore without form? What is "the deep"? Perhaps the infinite and empty universe. Where was the water, if not on Earth? And how could it be possible to provide evidence for a spirit to move over the waters?
quote:
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
There is day and night, but no planets or stars...
quote:
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 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.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
A firmament? Where is this firmament to be found? Obviously this dome, or whatever it's supposed to be, must be larger than the orbit of Pluto, otherwise the Voyager probes would have smacked into it. Actually it needs to be even bigger, or else there is no room for the galaxies and nebulae and all the other cool stuff out there, unless they are just part of a fantastic lightshow, of which most is hidden from societies without the technology or resources to build powerful telescopes.
Then there is water above the firmament and under it. The water underneath it is now the water on Earth, but what water is above the firmament? We know there's water off the face of the Earth, but are the comets and other worlds with water above the firmament?
quote:
1:9 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.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 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.
Did trees and grass appear first of all lifeforms on Earth?
quote:
1:14 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:
Day and night are once again created?
quote:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 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.
Is there any evidence to show that Earth is older than any of the stars, including the sun?
And so on. Then there are the stories about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and the Flood story and all those things. I would be greatly surprised if evidence could be found to support all this. Everything we know about the universe now would not only be incomplete, it would be completely wrong, almost all of it. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
| Edited by - Maverick on 01/06/2006 02:56:36 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 04:46:12 [Permalink]
|
| Bibleland, why do you ignore genetic research that provides overwhelming evidence evolution is the correct theory? The Earth is round, it isn't 6,000 years old, there was no worldwide flood, you couldn't fit all life forms into an ark and even if you could you couldn't have gotten them distributed back over the Earth where they are today, and so on and so on. Either you have to pick and choose which Bible myths to believe and which to call myths or you have to pick and choose which scientific discoveries you want to accept. Since we see the results of science everyday it's pretty hard to ignore the fact we can treat your cancer and fly you around in a jet and so on but just decide anything science discovers that contradicts the Bible is wrong. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 04:58:37 [Permalink]
|
Of all the Bible's recorded events, I think that Noah's Flood is the most onerous for the literalist and the apologist to defend, and it's sometimes amusing to watch them try to do it.
In the first place, this part of the Bible was not written by a seafarer, not even a shallow-water one. The Ark, as described, would not have been seaworthy. David McKay, one of the finest ship-builders that ever lived tried a 350 + footer and ended up with a slow vessel that chronicly leaked and had to be pumped 24/7. It was to sink in a gale off, if memory serves, Bermuda. The hull of any wooden vessel much over 300 feet won't stand up the the multiple stress' of even relativly minor, heavy weather.
I seem to recall that it was AiG, in the persona of Dr. Jonathon Sarfati, that went all moist and drippy over a Korean experiment that involved a scale modlel in a tank, some years ago. Arguments, mine among them, that for the experiment to be somewhere close to realistic scale, the model Ark would have to be framed with spagetti and straked with varnished Kleenax were met with enough slippery red herrings to start a fish farm.
Wood, even when reenforced with iron, simply is not strong enough at that length and it moves around too much. There is the further question of: in a land not renown for vast forests, where did all the lumber come from?
An' den, dere is dat ol' debble, de geologic record, which has never told a lie. Had there been a catastrophic, global flood 4-&-change thousand years ago, the evidence of it would stand out like Michael Moore at a Republican formal dinner. And, as the working assumption here is that the earth is something like 6,000 years old, thank you Bishop Usher, it would be virtually the entire geologic record.
The fossil record would be an untranslatable pile of jackstraws as represenitives of all species would be found tangled together in all strata. The lion, the lamb, the Diplodocus, and Noah's former neighbors would all lie together in peace amongst the detrius.
But never mind all of that; let us, just for argument's sake, assume that Noah did indeed manage to cram all of the kinds, whatever that might mean, into the Ark. And floated merrily around the world for a year or so. And finally ran aground on Mt. Ararat, to the joy of all hands because everybody was good and fed up with a diet of embalmed beef and hardtack, or whatever they might have subsisted upon, that they could no longer chew due to scurvy. They needed to get a truck garden going, post haste.
They would not have been able to do it, and the recent New Orleans disaster makes this point in microcosm to a fair-thee-well. There would have been no topsoil. They would have been standing on barren bedrock covered with a layer, of varying thickness, of noxious mud. Which brings up a question or two:
Could the Amazon Rain forest have formed from this in a mere 4K + years?
The same for the Great Barrier Reef.
And so forth.
How good's your math, John? The following link is to a post on another forum, written some years ago by Dr. Marty Leipzig, an oil field geologist and smart-ass who sat down and figured out the sheer impossibility of there having been a global flood.
You have the floor, Dr. Leipzig
quote:
Dr. Marty Leipzig looks at the mathematics of 'Noah's Flood.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 09-02-99 10:11
From: Marty Leipzig
Hey, Georgie. The cretinists at the ICR, AIG, CRC and a half-dozen other fundy-run shill organizations absolutely insist on the Flood of Noah" being global (meaning ALL the world, to your limited deference). To them, your claim that it was local makes you the infidel.
Shocking. When you're obviously nothing more than a nescient schmuck.
Hell, I'm just taking what they claim and agreeing it to death.
Viz:
First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see that, George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts involved.
So, here are the calculations:
First, Everest
V= 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6387.248 km cubed
= 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3)
Now, the Earth at sea level
V = 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6378.4 km cubed
= 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3)
And it continues on, even to discuss the heat generated by the sheer volume of the water necessary to flood the world in such a short amount of time. Interesting read....
But we can wave all of that aside, can we not, simply by saying: "God done it; God taken care of everything, hooray fer God!" and right there the discussion comes to a screeching halt because neither of us can come up with any emperical proofs concerning that statement, pro or con.
But as myths go, the story of Noah is one of the better ones.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 01/06/2006 05:02:11 |
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 05:55:38 [Permalink]
|
| Thank you all for your graciousness and comments. I'll see you soon. I promise not to dissapoint. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
