|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2008 : 06:37:15 [Permalink]
|
Hi Webster. Your lesson is nice for Sunday School, but you missed the point of the article. Some segment of the population thinks that the Noah's Ark event literally happened as laid out in the Bible. But as filthy has shown, this is absurd.
You write that:| By taking it out of context, Mr. Gillette commits the "Your theory doesn't work under my theory, so it must be wrong" fallacy. By assuming millions of years, he takes away the primary evidence for the Flood (billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water, all over the earth (including Mt Everest)). By assuming evolutionary human development, he ignores the possibility that Noah might have been smarter than "modern" shipbuilders. By assuming there was no global flood, he denies Noah any assets not available in the modern Middle East. |
This is a pretty weak critique. He's not "assuming" millions of years any more than you "assume" that the earth is a sphere.
Your argument that Noah may have been a better shipbuilder than modern day shipwrights sounds like special pleading.
Your final argument about the flood and Noah's access to assets doesn't even make sense.
And for what it's worth, the notion that Abraham "is generally agreed to have been a real person" is patently false except in Biblical literalist circles. |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2008 : 07:12:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Webster
Mr. Gillette's most fundamental error is that he takes the story out of its proper context, ...
|
myth supported by a firm belief.
... and tries to fit it into one in which it simply does not belong.
|
rational inquiry supported by reason and logic
In short, by arguing from false premises, he makes himself look like a fool.
|
By dismissing the arguments without a reasoned attempt to show why they are wrong simply make you appear gullible. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2008 : 09:05:41 [Permalink]
|
| he takes away the primary evidence for the Flood (billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water, all over the earth (including Mt Everest)) |
Any half-witted college freshman who took an introductory course in geology will tell you that's bogus. Billions of dead things are buried in water every year. And the fact that there are fossils in rock layers on Everest is not surprising either because it wasn't always a mountain. The Earth's surface is a dynamic place. If that's the "primary" evidence for the Flood, you're in a bit of trouble.
But let me give you my favorite argument against the Flood. Noah of course didn't take every species, only "kinds". This begs the question of how many "kinds" did he take? It seems to me like a decent figure is 5,000. A bit much for my taste, but it works. Now in order to make this clear, we'll say I could be off by a single order of magnitude. That is, he could have taken 500 to 50,000 kinds.
Then what happened? These 50,000 (or less) kinds micro evolved into the 5 million (that's the low estimate) or more species we have today in 6,000 years? Dear sir, that's more evolution than I care to believe in. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 08/03/2008 09:06:33 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2008 : 10:05:53 [Permalink]
|
Webster:
In short, by arguing from false premises, he makes himself look like a fool. |
Heh. You know, you can pretty much wave any amount of scientific evidence away by just saying "God did it." The thing is, evidence for a world wide flood is does not appear in the geological record. So it comes down to either considering the evidence, or ignoring it because it doesn't fit with a literal interpretation of a book that may not be meant to be taken literally.
Ignoring cosmological, geological, biological, zoological, anthropological and even engineering evidences is what you have to do to make the biblical story of the flood work. Doing that by saying "God did it" which is, according to you, the proper context begs the question. Why would God remove all evidence for a world wide flood if the purpose of that event was to demonstrate his power while at the same time removing people gone wrong from the planet? Why is this even open to debate? If the idea was to start over and keep people on the straight and narrow, based on a catastrophic reward for bad behavior, how does that succeed by wiping out the evidence for it? I'll tell you. It can only succeed as a parable, whether it happened or not.
If you choose to reject the knowledge gained by science, you might as well reject the idea that God gave us the brains to do science but doesn't really want us to use them. Does that make sense to you? Look around. Almost every modern convenience you have came from science. Our ability to cure disease and send packages into space comes from science that you, at least in part, reject. Doesn't it ever strike you as weird that the only science that doesn't hold up, in your view, is that science that tells a different story from the one told when you apply a literal interpretation to the biblical story of Genesis?
I submit that by doing that you are making a claim to know the mind of God, which is sheer hubris on your part.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2008 : 15:58:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Webster
It's difficult to know where to begin in criticizing this screed, as there is so much to find fault with. In short, neither writer knows what he's talking about, and fails to use simple logic with what little he does know.
Mr. Gillette's most fundamental error is that he takes the story out of its proper context, and tries to fit it into one in which it simply does not belong. The story of Noah and the Ark is not simply a story about a past event, it is an integral part of a foundational history. Divorced from its purpose, cut adrift from its history, disengaged from its consequences, of *course* it doesn't make sense. Why would it?
The purpose of this Biblical story is to tell about both God's judgment on a world full of evil (the Flood) and the means he provided for salvation (the Ark).
The history is just as important. What gave God the right to execute judgment on the world? He created it and he owns it, so he sets the rules. (See Genesis chapters 1 & 2.) If God is good, where did all this evil come from? Man chose to rebel against his Creator. (See Genesis 3.) Was it really that bad? Well, Cain killed his brother out of jealousy; his distant descendant Lamech bragged about having "killed ... a young man for injuring me." (See Genesis 4.) What kind of a man was Noah? Physically speaking, he was only nine generations from Adam, who had been formed by God's own hand, presumably in perfect physical condition. (See Genesis 5.) What preparations were made? With as much as 120 years to work in, Noah built a very large wooden ship; as he was a righteous man, he surely made some attempt to warn friends and family of the coming judgment. (See Genesis 6.) When did all these things take place? Less than 1700 years after the Creation event. (See Genesis 1, 5, & 7.)
The consequences connect Noah to secular history. The descendants of his grandsons (as recorded in Genesis 10) are identifiable people groups in Europe, Africa, and Asia, some of whom record the same names for their ancestors as Genesis gives. The confusion at Babel (depicted in Genesis 11) explains why some languages are related to each other, but not to all others, and is also mentioned in some ancient histories. The family line from Noah to Abraham is also given in Genesis 11, and Abraham is generally agreed to have been a real person -- in any case, he is recorded as having interacted with several cities and nations known to have existed at the time he is supposed to have lived.
By taking it out of context, Mr. Gillette commits the "Your theory doesn't work under my theory, so it must be wrong" fallacy. By assuming millions of years, he takes away the primary evidence for the Flood (billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water, all over the earth (including Mt Everest)). By assuming evolutionary human development, he ignores the possibility that Noah might have been smarter than "modern" shipbuilders. By assuming there was no global flood, he denies Noah any assets not available in the modern Middle East.
In short, by arguing from false premises, he makes himself look like a fool.
|
Hi Webster and welcome to SFN! Sorry to be getting back so late, but I had to go and pick up a motorcycle, and it's been an hectic day.
The story of Noah's Flood can be taken as read only if you happen to be a Bible literalist. The only context I used was that from scientific observation, and that is the only one that actually works. The Bible, while inspiring, certainly, is neither a scientific document nor even a very good historical one. It is allegory followed by ancedote and as such cannot be used for anything beyond such inspiration.
The geologic record shows no evidence of a flooding event of such magnitude, although there have been lots of smaller ones. Current thought has it that the Mediterranean invasion of the Black Sea through the Bosporus was the basis for the story. It's a pretty good theory because that flood must have been a doozy! Indeed, I have read that underwater observations have discovered evidence of villages at depth that were once on dry land -- today's coastal residents might keep that in mind.In 1998, William Ryan and Walter Pitman, geologists from Columbia University, published evidence that a massive flood through the Bosporus occurred about 5600 BC. Glacial meltwater had turned the Black and Caspian Seas into vast freshwater lakes, while sea levels remained lower worldwide. The fresh water lakes were emptying their waters into the Aegean Sea. As the glaciers retreated, rivers emptying into the Black Sea reduced their volume and found new outlets in the North Sea,[citation needed] and the water levels lowered through evaporation. Then, about 5600 BC, as sea levels rose, Ryan and Pitman suggest, the rising Mediterranean finally spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosporus. The event flooded 60,000 mile² (155,000 km²) of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and west. Ryan and Pitman wrote:
"Ten cubic miles [42 km³] of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls. …The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days." |
The fossil record also denies a global flood. If such had occured, that record would be a jackstraw jumble of bones representing species native to lands that are not close enough geography for species migration, all willy-nilly. As, according to the more apologetic sites such as AiG, all species that ever were would have been extant at the time, pelycosaurs would have been buried cheek by jowl with the megafauna, and conceivably, Noah's great aunt Sally's scrawny, old cat. And quite possibly, Auntie Sally herself. Indeed, there would be no fossil record; just a mass of disarticulated bones and a bevy of paleontologists standing around scratching their heads in confusion. But such is not the case. The fossil record is as neatly organized as the leaves of any book, and much better organized than many.
Was Noah as good (or better) a shipwrite as the ones of modern times? Hardly. As been pointed out, neither he nor anyone else of the day, had either the tools or the math, or even the facilities for such an ambitious project.
Which brings us to "God done it," the default position for this sort of thing. I really hate to see it come up because it effectivly ends the discussion. You cannot prove it any more than I can disprove it -- the supernatural sucks, eh?
Thank you for your comments, bro. They are appreciated.
|
"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 08/03/2008 18:11:58 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2008 : 16:48:01 [Permalink]
|
Coincidently, I happened upon this at AiG: Has Noah's Ark Been Found?
by John Morris Ph.D.May 2, 2007LaymanKeywordsarchaeology author-john-morris noahs-ark the-worldwide-flood
The ancient Greek historian Herodotus mentioned that religious pilgrims journeyed to Mt. Ararat, which traditionally has been accepted as the landing place of Noah's Ark. The Armenian people, who have lived at the foot of Ararat since before the time of Christ, maintain a strong attachment to Noah and the Ark.
In recent centuries, interest in the mountain and the huge wooden boat that may rest there has spread. Adventurous mountain-climbing Europeans first conquered the 17,000-foot (5,182-meter) summit in 1829. Reports in the twentieth century of wood being found high above the treeline fueled intense interest in new expeditions. Most notably, French explorer Fernando Navarro claimed in 1955 to have discovered wooden timbers in a glacial crevasse, stimulating even more interest among Western Christians, including me as a little boy.
|
It's by John Morris of ICR, who has yet to come up with enough to inspire thought, much less enthusiasm.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2008 : 17:35:58 [Permalink]
|
| Eh. Looks like Webster is a classic hit-and-run. Too bad, since it would be interesting to see how he was going to follow up on some of his more dubious arguments... |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2008 : 17:47:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Eh. Looks like Webster is a classic hit-and-run. Too bad, since it would be interesting to see how he was going to follow up on some of his more dubious arguments...
|
Yes, a pity. He is far more articulate than most of the run-of-the-mill YECs that come here. I would have liked to continue the discussion.
Edit: It turns out that I am not banned at UD after all. Don't know why I couldn't post for a time. Well, it's nice to ba an IDiot again. 
|
"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 08/04/2008 17:49:35 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 13:20:01 [Permalink]
|
If you believe that God exists and created the world then the flood story is very possible. God can accomplish anything if it is His will. If you do not believe the Bible to be true and God does not exist then the flood story looks absurd.
I think a long paper to disprove scientifically the flood could not have occured with natural forces is not needed. Most Christians would agree with you on that point. You cannot explain the Bible with science. Just like the stories of Jonah, David, Balam, Jesus etc. How can these events happen naturally without Gods intervention?
Christian apologists that try to use science to prove the Bible takes away Gods power to do His will however He pleases. A person cannot be converted by a scientific argument for God. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 14:01:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Christian apologists that try to use science to prove the Bible takes away Gods power to do His will however He pleases. A person cannot be converted by a scientific argument for God. |
Apologists are trying to do so all the time, and have been doing so since before Darwin (certain geological layers that seemed to be worldwide and contiguous were taken as evidence of the Flood in the early 1800s). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 14:38:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
If you believe that God exists and created the world then the flood story is very possible. God can accomplish anything if it is His will. If you do not believe the Bible to be true and God does not exist then the flood story looks absurd.
I think a long paper to disprove scientifically the flood could not have occured with natural forces is not needed. Most Christians would agree with you on that point. You cannot explain the Bible with science. Just like the stories of Jonah, David, Balam, Jesus etc. How can these events happen naturally without Gods intervention?
Christian apologists that try to use science to prove the Bible takes away Gods power to do His will however He pleases. A person cannot be converted by a scientific argument for God.
|
I wholeheartedly agree with you. This is, indeed, the reason why Religions should be left to Sunday schools and boarded out of any classrooms.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 15:07:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
If you believe that God exists and created the world then the flood story is very possible. |
Only if you also believe that god covered up all evidence of this event for some reason.
| God can accomplish anything if it is His will. |
Yes, but you also have to ask yourself if deception is congruent with god's stated character. Why would he go to the pains to erase all natural record of the global flood if it did happen?
| If you do not believe the Bible to be true and God does not exist then the flood story looks absurd. |
If you believe the bible to be true, then it's equally absurd that god would try to deceive his creation. It would also be absurd to ignore the fact that we have records from other ancient cultures that predate this supposed (and relatively recent) global flood that make no mention of it.
At a certain point, Robb, holding a belief in a literal global flood becomes so absurd that no matter how wise, powerful, and magical you believe god to be, it can't be maintained unless you conclude that nothing about reality can be trusted. Our existence becomes a lie.
I think a long paper to disprove scientifically the flood could not have occured with natural forces is not needed. Most Christians would agree with you on that point. You cannot explain the Bible with science. Just like the stories of Jonah, David, Balam, Jesus etc. How can these events happen naturally without Gods intervention?
Christian apologists that try to use science to prove the Bible takes away Gods power to do His will however He pleases. A person cannot be converted by a scientific argument for God.
|
Would you still be making this argument if the natural record 100% supported the flood myth?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/10/2009 15:09:25 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 15:42:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Would you still be making this argument if the natural record 100% supported the flood myth? |
Ouch.
 |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 16:42:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Robb
Christian apologists that try to use science to prove the Bible takes away Gods power to do His will however He pleases. A person cannot be converted by a scientific argument for God. |
Apologists are trying to do so all the time, and have been doing so since before Darwin (certain geological layers that seemed to be worldwide and contiguous were taken as evidence of the Flood in the early 1800s).
|
I agree, but just believeing God exists is not what the Bible says conversion is. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 16:45:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Originally posted by Robb
If you believe that God exists and created the world then the flood story is very possible. God can accomplish anything if it is His will. If you do not believe the Bible to be true and God does not exist then the flood story looks absurd.
I think a long paper to disprove scientifically the flood could not have occured with natural forces is not needed. Most Christians would agree with you on that point. You cannot explain the Bible with science. Just like the stories of Jonah, David, Balam, Jesus etc. How can these events happen naturally without Gods intervention?
Christian apologists that try to use science to prove the Bible takes away Gods power to do His will however He pleases. A person cannot be converted by a scientific argument for God.
|
I agree. I do not want the school system teaching my children about God. As long as my children can bring a Bible to school and if they can still pray in school if they should want to.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. This is, indeed, the reason why Religions should be left to Sunday schools and boarded out of any classrooms.
|
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fundamentalists Hate Noah’s Ark
