God, Generally Recognized Myths/Lies and Probability...

[Kaizen]

I've heard the point made of the concept of God being compared to things like fairies, elves (I think I first read it in The God Delusion)and such and what I've noticed is that there appears to be a presupposition that all of these are essentially equal in probability, thus emphasizing how ridiculous it is to accept the idea of a god or gods.

So this is certainly dependent upon your definition of god, which I personally think that the more clearly you define it/him/her/them and the more complex it is, the less probable it seems (to me). So if you have used this point of comparing god with fairies:

-Do you believe that they are equal in probability?
-What definition of god are you using for the comparison?
-What's brought you to the conclusion that they are equal in probability?
-If you were using a more ambiguous description of god or creator or designer, would that effect your opinion on the probability of the existence of such a thing/person/whatever you wanna call it?

(As a side note: I personally see the highly defined concept of god gradually escaping being disproved by the tool of becoming more and more ambiguous as science continues to indentify and explain more phenomenon)

[maatorc]

I've heard the point made of the concept of God being compared to things like .......

"GOD' is just a word referring to the totality of WHAT IS.

[Robin]

I've heard the point made of the concept of God being compared to things like fairies, elves (I think I first read it in The God Delusion)and such and what I've noticed is that there appears to be a presupposition that all of these are essentially equal in probability, thus emphasizing how ridiculous it is to accept the idea of a god or gods.
You will have to provide an example since I have never heard any argument based on the equiprobability of fairies, elves and gods. Certainly I can recall no such argument in "The God Delusion".

What you are probably referring to is when atheists respond to the claim that "if you cannot prove the falsity of P then the belief in the falsity of P is equivalent to the belief in the truth of P". Elves and fairies are merely an illustration of why this logic is faulty.

[Gate2501]

I've heard the point made of the concept of God being compared to things like fairies, elves (I think I first read it in The God Delusion)and such and what I've noticed is that there appears to be a presupposition that all of these are essentially equal in probability, thus emphasizing how ridiculous it is to accept the idea of a god or gods.

So this is certainly dependent upon your definition of god, which I personally think that the more clearly you define it/him/her/them and the more complex it is, the less probable it seems (to me). So if you have used this point of comparing god with fairies:

-Do you believe that they are equal in probability?
-What definition of god are you using for the comparison?
-What's brought you to the conclusion that they are equal in probability?
-If you were using a more ambiguous description of god or creator or designer, would that effect your opinion on the probability of the existence of such a thing/person/whatever you wanna call it?

(As a side note: I personally see the highly defined concept of god gradually escaping being disproved by the tool of becoming more and more ambiguous as science continues to indentify and explain more phenomenon)

I would say that stating that ANY 2 things are of exact equal probability outside of EXTREMELY controlled environments is setting yourself up to lose an argument.

Discussing the probabilities of things like elves, fairies, or gods is completely ludicrous, because they are not in any way observable. Until you can come up with some method of observing these magical beings (god included), you cannot even formulate a method for equating probability.

No one needs to "disprove" god, or fairies, or elves. They have all never been observed in any objective manner, and until they are, they simply do not exist outside of the minds of believers. If someone wants to pretend that magic is real, that is up to them, but it is also up to them to prove it, it is not up to the rest of the world to "disprove" anything.

[Tricky]

"GOD' is just a word referring to the totality of WHAT IS.
So you're a pantheist? You believe God is indistinguishable from nature?

[Bikewer]

Last year, someone bought me a big Encyclopedia Of Mythology for Xmas. I read through the whole thing, quite comprehensive.

I fail to see how anyone studying such material would come to the conclusion that the "Judeo-Christian" (for lack of a better term) mythology is qualitatively superior to any other of these myth cycles.
Most include a creation myth that's just as plausible as Genesis, and various events that compare to either the OT or the NT events.

[Rufo]

It could be argued that since different religions and thinkers have repeatedly redefined the word 'god', largely without much regard for other definitions, there is no 'right' definition, and everyone is free to attribute the word to whatever they feel like. In that case, one would have to form an opinion about every God individually.

That is also how I feel about the matter. But I believe that Dawkins, when he makes comparisons to fairies, refers to the most popular definitions of 'god' used among the religious. Dawkins is a scientist, and both the claim of existance of those Gods and fairies are beyond scientific inquiry, making them equally emtpy to a scientist. Whether their probability is the same is not really relevant.

[Nogbad]

I've heard the point made of the concept of God being compared to things like fairies, elves (I think I first read it in The God Delusion)and such and what I've noticed is that there appears to be a presupposition that all of these are essentially equal in probability, thus emphasizing how ridiculous it is to accept the idea of a god or gods.

So this is certainly dependent upon your definition of god, which I personally think that the more clearly you define it/him/her/them and the more complex it is, the less probable it seems (to me). So if you have used this point of comparing god with fairies:

-Do you believe that they are equal in probability?
-What definition of god are you using for the comparison?
-What's brought you to the conclusion that they are equal in probability?
-If you were using a more ambiguous description of god or creator or designer, would that effect your opinion on the probability of the existence of such a thing/person/whatever you wanna call it?

(As a side note: I personally see the highly defined concept of god gradually escaping being disproved by the tool of becoming more and more ambiguous as science continues to indentify and explain more phenomenon)

It also depends on your definition of fairies. There are the cute tiny ones in children's books or the rather more robust ones of Celtic legend. It was not so long ago that it would have taken a brave country person to say anything against the fairies. Indeed, a power cut of any length tends to remind people why folk used to be cautious of things that go bump or squeak in the night.

Fear and superstition are powerful stimulants to the imagination and once imagined they are not easily put to rest.

[Complexity]

Silly people.

Probability that any 'gods' have ever or will ever exist: 1 - 0.999999999999999999...

Probability that fairies exist: 1

(I'm a fairy - 100% certified gay)

Next silly question?

[Radrook]

Last year, someone bought me a big Encyclopedia Of Mythology for Xmas. I read through the whole thing, quite comprehensive.

I fail to see how anyone studying such material would come to the conclusion that the "Judeo-Christian" (for lack of a better term) mythology is qualitatively superior to any other of these myth cycles.
Most include a creation myth that's just as plausible as Genesis, and various events that compare to either the OT or the NT events.

What's brought you to the conclusion that they are equal in probability?

[Bikewer]

Is Genesis more compelling or likely than say, the first Frost Giant thawing the first man and woman from the ice? Most all creation myths have similar themes, and likely go well back into prehistory as oral traditions.
Why would the Old Testament myths be any different?

It's been shown that aspects of the OT myths (like the Flood) were likely adapted from other myths such as the Babylonian flood myth from Gilgamesh.

I'll turn the question back; why would one think that any of these myths were qualitatively superior?

[Beerina]

The first part of Genesis, the creation of the world probably derives from an earlier story where the god fought the great chaos dragon Leviathan and slew it, and split its body in half, with the upper half forming the solid "firmament" above, and the lower half the land below. Together the two halves held back the waters of chaos, forming a pocket in which we live.

Later on, people converting proto-Judaism into a monotheism, somewhere along the line had to remove any real competition for God besides just other gods, so the dragon had to go. However, they forgot to remove references to God's battle with Leviathan from Psalms

Other evidence of this early cosmology: When the Great Flood happened, God not only opened the windows above, but "broke up the fonts below", i.e. bulkheads or whatever keeping the waters from below from seeping up.

(BTW, anyone, religious or skeptic, who tries to argue only X amount of rain could fall in 40 days is ignoring this other explicit point -- the Bible clearly denotes water flooding up from below as well as falling from above.)


Anyhoo, we now know the sky is not "firm", and that we don't live in a hollowed-out pocket within some vast 3-dimensional space filled with water.

[godless dave]

It's not about probability, it's about evidence. The evidence for the existence of all the gods I've ever heard of is of the same type as the evidence for fairies - hearsay.

[Radrook]

Is Genesis more compelling or likely than say, the first Frost Giant thawing the first man and woman from the ice?

Of course!

Most all creation myths have similar themes, and likely go well back into prehistory as oral traditions. Why would the Old Testament myths be any different?

Very simple. Because they are written history and not myths as you choose to conveniently tag these events. Actually, I see absolutely no reason to give more credence to that opinion than to Jesus who also considered the OT written history. So based on that alone that view is totally unacceptable.




It's been shown that aspects of the OT myths (like the Flood) were likely adapted from other myths such as the Babylonian flood myth from Gilgamesh.

Shown? Are you sure? Actually, that's a non sequiter. Temporal Priority does not guarantee source nor cause. For a self-proclaimed skeptic-you sure are willing to take a gullible stance when deemed convenient.

I'll turn the question back; why would one think that any of these myths were qualitatively superior?

That wasn't your original question.

================================================== =================

EXCERPT

Significant Differences Between Genesis and Epic of Gilgamesh Characteristic Genesis Gilgamesh

Reason for flood human wickedness (extreme violence)--- excessive human noisiness

Response of deity Lord was sorry He made man because of his wickedness--- gods could not sleep

Warned by Yahweh (God) Ea

Main character Noah ("rest") Utnapishtim ("finder of life")

Why character chosen a righteous man ----------no reason given

Intended for All humans except Noah and his family------ all humans

Decision to send flood Yahweh (God)----------- council of the gods (primarily Enlil)

Builders Noah and family --------Utnapishtim, his family, and many craftsmen from city


Character's response Noah warned his neighbors of upcoming judgment as "Preacher of righteousness"3 ---------Told by Ea to lie to neighbors so that they would help him build the boat


Building time 100 years 7 days -------Boat size 450x75x45 feet 200x200x200 feet (unseaworthy cube) Boat roof wood slate (top heavy?)
# Decks 3 12

Humans Noah and family------ Utnapishtim, his family, and craftsmen from city

Cargo animals and food animals,---------- food, gold jewels, and other valuables

Launching by the floodwaters --------- pushed to the river

Door closed by Yahweh (God)---------- Utnapishtim

Sign of coming flood none------------ extremely bright light sent by god Annanuki

Waters sent by Yahweh (God) ------------ gods Nergal and Ninurta

Reaction of deity to flood in control of waters-------- gods scrambled to get away from water like "whipped dogs"

Duration of rain 40 days 7 days ---Duration of flood 260 days 14 days

Boat landing Mt. Ararat--- Mt. Nisir

Deity's reaction to human deaths no regret mentioned--- regretted that they had killed all the humans

Birds sent out raven returns, dove returns second time with olive branch, then leaves-- dove returns, swallow returns, raven does not return

Offering after flood every clean animal and bird ---------wines and a sheep

Aftermath God promises not to destroy humanity by flood again ---- gods quarrel among themselves, god Ea lies to Enlil.

Utnapishtim and wife given immortality like the gods

Repopulation Noah and family told to multiply and repopulate the earth---- Ea and Mami created 14 human beings to help repopulate the earth

Gilgamesh
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK8Gq.pH2WQA0S5rCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12b3rf2kq/EXP=1206647942/**http%3a//www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gilgamesh.html

Gilgamesh account sounds like a ridiculous and very possibly Satanically- inspired distortion of what really happened. Furthermore, it is expected that the family line of Shem son of Noah which led to Abraham and from Abraham to Moses would be the one with converying the accurate account and not those of Japeth or Ham who had deviated from true worship.

Genesis 11:

Shem’s Descendants

10 This is the genealogy of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood. 11 After he begot Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.
12 Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Salah. 13 After he begot Salah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters.
14 Salah lived thirty years, and begot Eber. 15 After he begot Eber, Salah lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters.
16 Eber lived thirty-four years, and begot Peleg. 17 After he begot Peleg, Eber lived four hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters.
18 Peleg lived thirty years, and begot Reu. 19 After he begot Reu, Peleg lived two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters.
20 Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Serug. 21 After he begot Serug, Reu lived two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters.
22 Serug lived thirty years, and begot Nahor. 23 After he begot Nahor, Serug lived two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.
24 Nahor lived twenty-nine years, and begot Terah. 25 After he begot Terah, Nahor lived one hundred and nineteen years, and begot sons and daughters.
26 Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Terah’s Descendants

27 This is the genealogy of Terah: Terah begot Abram,
==================================================

Bolding Mine

Romans 3:1-31 NWT

1 What, then, is the superiority of the Jew, or what is the benefit of the circumcision?
2 A great deal in every way. First of all, because they were entrusted with the sacred
pronouncements of God

[Zygar]

Gilgamesh account sounds like a ridiculous and very possibly Satanically- inspired distortion of what really happened. Furthermore, it is expected that the family line of Shem son of Noah which led to Abraham and from Abraham to Moses would be the one with converying the accurate account and not those of Japeth or Ham who had deviated from true worship.

Take off your Christ goggles, and the interpretation turns into:

The Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Flood are so similar that they are clearly evolved from the same tale. Since there is no way to distinguish which one is closer to the original, there is no way to determine which is the origin of the tale, but since there is no evidence of any such flood, they are clearly both a fabrication or an overdramatization.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not about probability, it's about evidence. The evidence for the existence of all the gods I've ever heard of is of the same type as the evidence for fairies - hearsay.Unless you are Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or Oral Roberts, then you would have first hand experience talking to 'God'. ;)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Come on, Radrook, one creation story is as historical as the next. You have an incredibly limited view to think the myths you believe in are really historical accounts and the myths other people believe in are myths.

BTW, have you ever read that Bible you believe is a work of non-fiction? People turning into pillars of salt, walking on water, rising from the dead, talking snakes, walking with a god on Earth, magical stone tablets, magical gardens, angels, all the species fitting into a single boat, a worldwide flood, and on and on...

Sounds like myths to anyone with common sense and a few critical thinking skills.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Radrook, I suggest you go play a game of Chinese whispers, and then come back and say with a straight face that those differences are "significant".

[Radrook]

Take off your Christ goggles, and the interpretation turns into:

The Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Flood are so similar that they are clearly evolved from the same tale. Since there is no way to distinguish which one is closer to the original, there is no way to determine which is the origin of the tale, but since there is no evidence of any such flood, they are clearly both a fabrication or an overdramatization.

No, you take off your tinted atheist goggles instead. If the biblical flood is indeed an over-dramatization, where are the ancient
protests against this supposed dramatization? As for scientific evidence, I personally don't trust the current atheistic
interpretations which scientists prefer to give whatever it is they are finding. Anything to the contry is conveniently explained away because-well-shucks-it doesn't fit in. Or if two or three viable interpretations are available, well, then they better choose the atheistic one in order to avoid getting laughed out of their precious academe.

[joobz]

Radrook, I suggest you go play a game of Chinese whispers, and then come back and say with a straight face that those differences are "significant".
Those Differences are Significant
Those different are significant
Those different aren't significant
Those different ain't significant
Those different, paint significance
Though different, paint sufference
Go Different, paint suffer Hence
Purple monkey Cumquat.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Purple monkey Cumquat.
Myrtle murdered Sasquatch?! :eek:

[Zygar]

No, you take off your tinted atheist goggles instead. If the biblical flood is indeed an over-dramatization, where are the ancient
protests against this supposed dramatization? As for scientific evidence, I personally don't trust the current atheistic
interpretations which scientists prefer to give whatever it is they are finding. Anything to the contry is conveniently explained away because-well-shucks-it doesn't fit in. Or if two or three viable interpretations are available, well, then they better choose the atheistic one in order to avoid getting laughed out of their precious academe.

Nice try, but I am not an atheist.

I see two major problems with your complaint.

Since when did we have records of ancient protests of any sort?
Why would anyone protest over someone trumping up his story? Were there protests over Paul Bunyan?

[godless dave]

No, you take off your tinted atheist goggles instead. If the biblical flood is indeed an over-dramatization, where are the ancient
protests against this supposed dramatization?

Where are the ancient protests against the Norse creation story? The Greek creation story? The Slavic creation story? The Egyptian creation story?

[Robin]

No, you take off your tinted atheist goggles instead. If the biblical flood is indeed an over-dramatization, where are the ancient
protests against this supposed dramatization?
Wow, you are right! I just checked all the contemporary newpaper reports, government archives and ancient internet blogs and could find no evidence of protest against this over dramatization. So the Bible flood story must be true.

[Robin]

Stuff I have recently read in the newspaper:

1. Bill Gates invented the internet.
2. Bill Gates invented computers
3. Margaret Thatcher coined the phrase "There is nothing so powerful as an idea who's time has come"
4. Albert Einstein said "We only use 5% of our brains and if we ever used all of our brains we would become pure energy"

[Silentknight]

Very simple. Because they are written history and not myths as you choose to conveniently tag these events. Actually, I see absolutely no reason to give more credence to that opinion than to Jesus who also considered the OT written history. So based on that alone that view is totally unacceptable.

Do you have a single shred of archaeological or historical evidence that proves that Adam and Eve were literally the first humans on Earth, or that the biblical flood actually occurred as written? I shouldn't have to remind you that the bible can't be used as proof for the bible.

~~~~~~~~

Why is it that some people are so insecure in their faith that they have to vigorously defend such ridiculous stories as literal history? Is the message of Jesus so fragile and worthless that it must rely on something like the Noahic flood to prop it up?

[rocketdodger]

Or if two or three viable interpretations are available, well, then they better choose the atheistic one in order to avoid getting laughed out of their precious academe.

This is a central theme in most of your posts.

Since you came to this forum you have not provided any of these other "viable interpretations" that you keep mentioning.

The only thing you have provided are links to hogwash, nonsense, and other forms of textual dog****.

Are you finally ready to provide an alternative interpretation that is viable, for anything you have gone on about here, or is this just another empty post of yours?

[godless dave]

It's written history that Rome was founded by the brothers Romulus and Remus, who, as infants, were abandoned by their parents and were suckled and raised by a wolf.

Do you believe this story is true, Radrook? If not, where are the ancient protests against this written historical account?

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... As for scientific evidence, I personally don't trust the current atheistic interpretations which scientists prefer to give whatever it is they are finding. Anything to the contry is conveniently explained away because-well-shucks-it doesn't fit in. Or if two or three viable interpretations are available, well, then they better choose the atheistic one in order to avoid getting laughed out of their precious academe.There seems to only be about 10 atheists on this list of the 100 most influential scientists (http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html). That doesn't fit with your rationale as to why science is so unreliable.

[Darth Rotor]

Myrtle murdered Sasquatch?! :eek:

He said marble girdered asshat.

I heard him clearly through the intertubes.

Does you subliminal assault on headwear fashion know no limits? :eek:

DR

[maatorc]

So you're a pantheist? You believe God is indistinguishable from nature?

If you define 'nature' as the totality of what is: Yes.

[Radrook]

There seems to only be about 10 atheists on this list of the 100 most influential scientists (http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html). That doesn't fit with your rationale as to why science is so unreliable.

I don't consider science unreliable. I do consider certain scientists unethical and biased. But since that type of dubious modus-operandi doesn't fall under science it doesn't diminish in any way my admiration for science per se. Furthermore, the suspect modus operandi is restricted to a very small area of what constitutes science--usually the science that has a direct or indirect bearing on theism. Otherwise scientists seem quite content to proceed in a logical acceptable proffesional way.

[Radrook]

Nice try, but I am not an atheist.

I see two major problems with your complaint.
[LIST=1]
Since when did we have records of ancient protests of any sort?

Not really:

In the historical account below we have an ancient historian going out of his way to set things straight in relation to false ideas.


excerpt


Some of the Greeks, however, wishing to get a reputation for cleverness, have offered explanations of the phenomena of the river, for which they have accounted in three different ways. Two of these I do not think it worth while to speak of, further than simply to mention what they are. One pretends that the Etesian winds cause the rise of the river by preventing the Nile-water from running off into the sea. But in the first place it has often happened, when the Etesian winds did not blow, that the Nile has risen according to its usual wont; and further, if the Etesian winds produced the effect, the other rivers which flow in a direction opposite to those winds ought to present the same phenomena as the Nile, and the more so as they are all smaller streams, and have a weaker current. But these rivers, of which there are many both in Syria and Libya, are entirely unlike the Nile in this respect.

The second opinion is even more unscientific than the one just mentioned, and also, if I may so say, more marvelous. It is that the Nile acts so strangely, because it flows from the ocean, and that the ocean flows all round the earth.

http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.2.ii.html


That's just one historian and one example. I can provide many more if you wish.


BTW
The Egyptian historians were in the habit of protesting history by distorting the facts in their own favor or otherwise ignoring national military and social disasters.


Why would anyone protest over someone trumping up his story?

Because ancient historians were interested in correcting things claimed to be facts and the Hebrews were claiming these things not as mere myth-but as historical facts. So if they if they had been lies then it would have drawn their critical attention.


Were there protests over Paul Bunyan?

False analogy since Paul; Bunyon was always put forth as myth and not as an historical account.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't consider science unreliable. I do consider certain scientists unethical and biased. But since that type of dubious modus-operandi doesn't fall under science it doesn't diminish in any way my admiration for science per se. Furthermore, the suspect modus operandi is restricted to a very small area of what constitutes science--usually the science that has a direct or indirect bearing on theism. Otherwise scientists seem quite content to proceed in a logical acceptable proffesional way.Round and round the mulberry bush,
Radrook has much trouble.
Skeptigirl reminds him that science has found
the evidence for evolution theory is sound.
Pop goes Radrook's bubble.

Back up Radrook. You claimed evolution theory was only promoted by atheist scientists. Now you say science is sound except for the stuff you don't like. Is your head really that deep in the sand? Do you have a clue how much of our successful medical, biological and agricultural scientific achievements are based entirely on evolution theory?

[Zygar]

The Egyptian historians were in the habit of protesting history by distorting the facts in their own favor or otherwise ignoring national military and social disasters.

Perhaps that is why they don't repeat the flood account?

Because ancient historians were interested in correcting things claimed to be facts and the Hebrews were claiming these things not as mere myth-but as historical facts. So if they if they had been lies then it would have drawn their critical attention.

Egyptians didn't enslave the Jews, either. But they didn't state that in their history. Why? Because the books of the Bible were not well publicized until the Catholics came along and started making copies of the collection they decided upon in the Nicene Council.

False analogy since Paul; Bunyon was always put forth as myth and not as an historical account.

Then maybe look at the other numerous analogies that others put forth.

[Irony]

Because ancient historians were interested in correcting things claimed to be facts and the Hebrews were claiming these things not as mere myth-but as historical facts. So if they if they had been lies then it would have drawn their critical attention.

Several hundred years in the future someone is going to make a false accusation against Mormonism based upon a story some guy made up yesterday that is at the moment only known by himself and his roommate. In time that accusation will eventually become commonly accepted as true. You have a chance to correct this misconception here and now. Be sure to refute in detail every single claim this person made or it won't count.

[Radrook]

Perhaps that is why they don't repeat the flood account?

The flood account is found in various distorted forms in all cultures all over the world. Ever wonder why?



Egyptians didn't enslave the Jews, either. But they didn't state that in their history.

Well, if you believe they didn't. Why are you expressing amazement that they didn'?


Why? Because the books of the Bible were not well publicized until the Catholics came along and started making copies of the collection they decided upon in the Nicene Council.

The Egyptians didn't publicise enslaving the Jews because the enslavemet had not been well publicised?


BTW

The Catholic Church's roles in choosing among many books which ones were to be considered oofficially inspired and included in the Bible canon. Their task did NOT involve adding nor subtracting. Neither were the biblical books unkown before the Nicene Council. The OT with its Exodus account describing Israel's slavery in Egypt was in existence since the time of Moses, more than a thousand years before the Nicene council.

So were the other OT books. Actually, all the 66 inspired books were available hundreds of years before the council you mention, and were well-read. So it seems to me that now you are conjecturing before checking your statements against historical evidence.

[Radrook]

Round and round the mulberry bush,
Radrook has much trouble.
Skeptigirl reminds him that science has found
the evidence for evolution theory is sound.
Pop goes Radrook's bubble.

Well, the meter is off, but nice try. In any case, I disagree that the evidence is sound. In fact, I see no evidence at all. What I see is interpretation of data to suite the evolutionist idea.


Back up Radrook.

This is not a schoolyard brawl.

You claimed evolution theory was only promoted by atheist scientists.

Never said such a thing. There are theists who believe God or their god used evolution as his method of creation.

Now you say science is sound except for the stuff you don't like.

Not at all. I said science is sound except when it ceases to be science.


Is your head really that deep in the sand?

That's off-topic and based on personal, subjective,and biased opinion.


Do you have a clue how much of our successful medical, biological and agricultural scientific achievements are based entirely on evolution theory?

Please provide details.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The flood account is found in various distorted forms in all cultures all over the world. Ever wonder why?Ummm, because floods are common natural disasters all over the world just as they still are to this day? :rolleyes:


...The Catholic Church's roles in choosing among many books which ones were to be considered oofficially inspired and included in the Bible canon. Their task did NOT involve adding nor subtracting. Neither were the biblical books unkown before the Nicene Council. The OT with its Exodus account describing Israel's slavery in Egypt was in existence since the time of Moses, more than a thousand years before the Nicene council.

So were the other OT books. Actually, all the 66 inspired books were available hundreds of years before the council you mention, and were well-read. So it seems to me that now you are conjecturing before checking your statements against historical evidence.So you ascribe to the idea all the books not included in the Bible are still God inspired and should be in the Bible?

[Radrook]

Ummm, because floods are common natural disasters all over the world just as they still are to this day? :rolleyes:

What they all describe isn't a common normal type of flood.


Excerpt:

Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.

These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided. The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record), but oral transcription has changed the details through time.http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html


So you ascribe to the idea all the books not included in the Bible are still God inspired and should be in the Bible?

No.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...I disagree that the evidence [for evolution] is sound. In fact, I see no evidence at all. What I see is interpretation of data to suite the evolutionist idea. ....

Skep: Do you have a clue how much of our successful medical, biological and agricultural scientific achievements are based entirely on evolution theory?

Please provide details.No doubt a complete waste of time as far as you are concerned since none of this is new information, but maybe some other readers might find it interesting.

This is enough for now, it's some of the first stuff I came across using a simple Google search for "medical breakthroughs from evolution science":

Macaque Genome Deciphered; May Herald Medical Breakthroughs (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-macaque-genome.html)Scientists have finished sequencing the genome of the rhesus macaque monkey in work they say will enhance medical research in a wide range of areas, including HIV and neuroscience.

The findings will also advance scientists' understanding of primate evolution and what makes humans genetically distinct.

An analysis comparing the macaque genome to the already sequenced chimpanzee and human genomes shows that the three primate species share about 93 percent of their DNA. But they have some significant differences among their genes.

"We really want to know what makes us humans—and different from our primate cousins," said Richard Gibbs, director of Baylor College of Medicine's Human Genome Sequencing Center in Houston, Texas.

"This study allows us to observe what has been added or deleted in each of these three primate genomes during their evolution."

HHMI Research on Evolution in Action Highlighted in Science's "Breakthrough of the Year" (http://www.hhmi.org/news/122305.html) The research on evolution and nine other research advances make up Science's list of the top 10 scientific developments in 2005, chosen for their profound implications for society and the advancement of science. The Top Ten list appears in the December 23, 2005, issue of the journal Science .

In citing recent studies on evolution, Science highlighted recently published research from HHMI investigators Sean Carroll at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, David Kingsley at Stanford University, Bruce Lahn at the University of Chicago and Christopher Walsh at Harvard Medical School.

Sean Carroll

By analyzing the genetic origin of a modest spot on a fruit fly wing, Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers discovered a molecular mechanism that explains, in part, how new patterns can evolve. The secret appears to be specific segments of DNA that orchestrate where proteins are used in the construction of an insect's body. ...

David Kingsley

In a stunning example of evolution at work, HHMI scientists discovered that changes in a single gene can produce major changes in the skeletal armor of fish living in the wild.

The surprising results, which were published in the March 25, 2005, issue of journal Science , bring new data to long-standing debates about how evolution occurs in natural habitats. ...

Using genetic crosses between armored and unarmored fish from wild populations, the research team found that one gene is what makes the difference. “Now, for the first time, we've been able to identify the actual gene that is controlling this trait,” the armor-plating on the stickleback, Kingsley said.

Bruce Lahn

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language. ...

Their analyses focused on detecting sequence changes in two genes - Microcephalin and “abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated” ( ASPM ) - across different human populations. In humans, mutations in either of these genes can render the gene nonfunctional and cause microcephaly - a clinical syndrome in which the brain develops to a much smaller size than normal.

Christopher A. Walsh

Humans evolved in the most recent few moments of evolution's grand pageant. The evolutionary lineage leading to humans split off from the lineage leading to chimpanzees some 6 to 8 million years ago. But anatomically modern humans—people who looked as we do today—appeared only about 150,000 years ago (less than one three-thousandth of the time between us and the Cambrian period). ...

"We have some evidence for the action of all three of those mechanisms, and we're sorting out which of them is likely to be most important," said Walsh. Publication of the chimp genome revealed that a number of genes in humans have been duplicated and then altered since the days of our common ancestor, and some of those genes may influence the development of human brains. Similarly, many of our genes are slightly different from the corresponding genes of the chimp, although that animal's genome reveals a striking similarity in coding sequences across the two species.

Stanford evolution research cited by Science as a 2005 breakthrough (http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/22312/Stanford_evolution_research_cited_by_Science_as_a_ 2005_breakthrough.html)In a roundup of breakthroughs to be published in the journal's Dec. 23 issue, Science points out that evolution is the underpinning of all biological research. "Today evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted," the editors wrote. ... The editors say that in addition to being interesting work, advances in evolutionary biology can directly aid human health by helping researchers understand how flu spreads or aiding in the discovery of disease-related genes.

Why Evolution Matters - Agriculture | Cornerstone of biology | Environment | Medicine (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/index.html)One of the fathers of the "modern synthesis" of evolutionary biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky, stated that "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." His words are equally true when applied to related fields, such as agriculture, medicine, and environmental and conservation biology. The books, articles, and Web sites listed here discuss the importance of evolution as the foundation of biology and its implications for our future.


.. There are theists who believe God or their god used evolution as his method of creation.So why then are you having such a hard time recognizing that evolution is a fact?

.. I said science is sound except when it ceases to be science.Except your posts indicate you know very little about evolution science so how can you possibly know what is and isn't valid science?

[cyborg]

Except your posts indicate you know very little about evolution science so how can you possibly know what is and isn't valid science?

DUH. When it doesn't agree with what he alreay knows is true.

Do try to keep up skeptigirl.

[godless dave]

The flood account is found in various distorted forms in all cultures all over the world. Ever wonder why?

Flood stories are only found in some cultures - usually cultures that originated in the flood plains of large rivers.

[Ladewig]

The flood account is found in various distorted forms in all cultures all over the world. Ever wonder why?

I didn't realize how widespread these myths are until I looked at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html . Still , I'll have to agree with Skeptigirl that popularity of a myth does not make it true. Many cultures have stories of giants, dragons, or flying people, but stories from indigineous cultures are not evidence.

Evidence against a world-wide flood in the past 10,000 years is overwhelming. There is no mitochondrial bottleneck observed in humans and all other air-breathing animals. Fields ranging from dendrochronolgy to geology indicate that there was no flood in the past 10 millenia. If flood believers could produce conclusive evidence against the current understanding of the world, then they would earn Nobel prizes and world-wide fame.

[Limbo]

Radrook,

I wonder if you would be good enough to read this small excerpt and share your thoughts. Please be as specific and detailed as possible.

From The Inner Reaches of Outer Space, pages 8-11 by Joseph Campbell:

"A decisive, enormous leap out of the confines of all local histories and landscapes occurred in Mesopotamia in the fourth millennium b.c., during the period of the rise of the ziggurats, those storied temple towers, symbolic of the Axis Mundi, which are caricatured in the Bible as the Tower of Babel. The leap was from geography to cosmos, beyond the moon, whereupon the primal, limited, and limiting tribal manner of thought (which the Hebrew prophets chose deliberately to retain) was by the Gentile nations left behind. That was the period when writing was invented; also mathematical measurement, and the wheel. The priestly watchers of the night skies at that time were the first in the world to recognize that there is mathematical regularity in the celestial passages of the seven visible spheres - the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn - along the heaven-way of the Zodiac.

And with that, the idea dawned of a cosmic order, mathematically discoverable, which it should be the function of a governing priesthood to translate from its heavenly revelation into an order of civilized human life. The idea of the hieratic city-state made its appearance at that time, with kings and queens symbolically attired, enacting together with their courts an aristocratic mime in imitation of the celestial display, the king crowned as the moon or the sun, his queen and the other members of their court as planetary presences.

And when the celestial signs appeared that were interpreted as marking the end of an eon, the kings and queens, together with their courts, were ceremoniously buried alive. Sir James G. Frazer, in The Golden Bough (12 volumes, 1907-1915), published evidence from many parts of the world of the practice of such rites. Buried courts have been unearthed from Sumer and Egypt to China.

Some notion of the whole profoundly conceived, macro-microcosmic import of such courtly mimes may be gained from a consideration of the mathematics of the mythological and actual cycles of the calendars to which such rites were attached. For example, in the Hindu sacred epics and Puranas (popular tellings of ancient lore) the number of years reckoned to the present cycle of time, the so called Kali Yuga, is 432,000; the number reckoned in the "great cycle" (mahayuga) within which this yuga falls being 4,320,000.

But then reading one day in the Icelandic Eddas, I discovered that in Othin's (Wotan's) warrior hall, Valhöll, there were 540 doors, through each of which, on the "Day of the Wolf" (that is to say, at the end of the present cycle of time), there would pass 800 divine warriors to engage the antigods in a battle of mutual annihilation. 800 X 540 = 432,000. And so I asked myself how it might ever have come to pass that in tenth-to-thirteenth century Iceland the same number of years were reckoned to the present cycle of time as in India.

In Babylon, I then recalled, there had been a Chaldean priest, Berossos, who, c. 280 b.c., had rendered into Greek an account of the history and mythology of Babylonia, wherein it was told that between the time of the rise of the first city, Kish, and the coming of the Babylonian mythological flood (from which that of the Bible was taken), there elapsed 432,000 years, during which antediluvian era, ten kings reigned. Very long lives! Longer even than Methuselah's (Genesis 5:27), which had been of only 969.

So I turned to the Old Testament (Genesis 5) and counting the number of antediluvian patriarchs, Adam to Noah, discovered, of course, that there were ten. How many years? Adam was 130 years old when he begat Seth, who was 105 when he begat Enosh, and so on, to Noah, who was 600 years old when the flood came: to a grand total, from the first day of Adam's creation to the last drop of rain of Noah's flood, of 1,656 years. Any relation to 432,000? Julius Oppert, a distinguished Jewish Assyriologist of the last century, in 1877 presented before the Royal Society for Sciences in Göttingen a paper on "Dates in Genesis," in which it was shown that in 1,656 years there are 86,400 seven-day weeks. 86,400 / 2 = 43,200.

And so it appears that in the Book of Genesis there are two contrary theologies represented in relation to the Deluge. One is the old tribal, popular tale of a willful, personal creator-god, who saw that "the wickedness of man was great in the earth...and was sorry that he had made man on the earth...and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them' " (Genesis 6:5-7).

The other idea, which is fundamentally contrast, is that of the disguised number, 86,400, which is a deeply hidden reference to the Gentile, Sumero-Babylonian, mathematical cosmology of the ever-revolving cycles of impersonal time, with whole universes and their populations coming into being, flowering for a season of 43,200 (432,000 or 4,320,000) years, dissolving back into the cosmic mother-sea to rest for an equal spell of years before returning, and so again, again, and again.

The Jews, it will be remembered, were for fifty years exiled from their capitol to Babylon (586-539 b.c), when the were subject, willy nilly, to Babylonian influences, so that although the popular, exoteric version of their Deluge legend is from the period of David's kingdom, tenth century or so b.c., the exquisitely secreted indication of a priestly knowledge, beyond that, of a larger, cyclic version of the legend - where the god himself would have come into being and gone out of being with the universe of which he was the lord - is post-Exilic, as are, also, the genealogical datings of Genesis chapter 5, which are so very nicely contrived to join the 600 years of Noah's age at the time of the flood to furnish a total of exactly 1,656."

[Radrook]

Thanx for all the research and the links. Obviously you believe heart and soul in these ideas and I respect your right to that belief.


So why then are you having such a hard time recognizing that evolution is a fact?

First, because it isn't a fact.

Second-because all I see them doing is approaching everything they discover within a rigid evolutionary framework and interpreting everything they find within that framework. This is a modus operandi employed by racists. They conveniently proceed to tag a group as racially inferior-and then explained all that group's behavior within that context in order to make it SEEM to prove their preconceived notions.

Third, the very foundation of atheistic evolution is abiogenesis which is a belief based on NOTHING but wishful thinking. So when these scientists tongue-in-cheek proceed to base their evolutionist ideas on it, their whole edifice comes crashing down.

Actually, I consider it an insult to my intelligence to be asked to believe in a process which has no inductive support as opposed to ID and life coming only from life which do.

BTW

Perhaps when I was less familiar with the requirements of logical or cogent reasoning I might have fallen for their antics. But as I stand at present-there is very little chance.

Except your posts indicate you know very little about evolution science so how can you possibly know what is and isn't valid science?

Now isn't that the epitome of presumption!

We don't need to agree with evolution in order to know what is or isn't valid science. There are hundreds of scientists who disagree with evolution and who know the difference between what is and isn't valid science and have even gone so far as to proclaim what YOU consider vaid science a quackery.


BTW
Once an idea is proven ridiculous-it is a waste of time to seek more details based on the same idea. Now that"s would be going around the mulberry bush!

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Once an idea is proven ridiculous-it is a waste of time to seek more details based on the same idea. Now that"s would be going around the mulberry bush!I'm glad you agree then that it is a waste of time to seek more details on irreducible complexity, intelligent design, and creationism.

[Radrook]

I didn't realize how widespread these myths are until I looked at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html .Still , I'll have to agree with Skeptigirl that popularity of a myth does not make it true. Many cultures have stories of giants, dragons, or flying people, but stories from indigenous cultures are not evidence.

I didn't say they were conclusive evidence. However, the similarities are striking and should provoke some thought on the matter instead of unskeptically brushing them aside as happy coincidences. About dragons, we aren't 100% sure whether this universal referral to these animals is can be dismissed as a happy coincidences either. The Chinese dragon, for example, is strongly suspected as being based on an actual animal which lived in China's lakes. Here is an interesting article:

Chinese Dragon Fossil
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK8Rk.5HbhsBvxdrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=134148b0v/EXP=1206903953/**http%3a//www.weirdasianews.com/2007/06/29/real-dragon-fossils-on-display-in-china/

The stories of Giants aren't all myths. They have been confirmed via archeological digs which have found people of extraordinary size.

Giants
http://www.stevequayle.com/index.html

Neither are the flying people myths as far-fetched as we might imagine. The South American Indians, the Nazca of Peru are suspected of using hot air balloons in order to view their own gargantuan artwork from heights.

Hot air ballooning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hot air balloon pilot and ... speculation that hot air balloons were used by the Nazca Indians of Peru some ... Possible prehistoric Nazca hot air balloon ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_lines



Evidence against a world-wide flood in the past 10,000 years is overwhelming. There is no mitochondrial bottleneck observed in humans....

There is a human genetic bottleneck.

....and all other air-breathing animals. Fields ranging from dendrochronolgy to geology indicate that there was no flood in the past 10 millennia. If flood believers could produce conclusive evidence against the current understanding of the world, then they would earn Nobel prizes and world-wide fame.

Nothing which believers can provide will ever be considered conclusive. It will be argued around, discredited and explained away in one form or the other. The problem is, and will continue to be, that atheist scientists are extremely reluctant to give the slightest credence to anything which might even remotely confirm the biblical account.

Just yesterday I was watching a documentary about a recently discovered underwater city near the coast of one of Japan's islands. Despite the repeated observations by other scientists who went personally to the site and examined the archeological evidence and who swear that this city is indeed a city, and not some anomaly caused by nature, one prominent atheist scientist whose opinion would overturn the prevalent narrow minded skepticism refused to even go and take a look. That's the prevalent modus modus operandi.

Japanese Underwater City Discovered
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKXPke5HRg4BBV1rCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12pahpdan/EXP=1206903631/**http%3a//donklephant.com/2007/09/03/japanese-underwater-city-uncovered/

BTW
I have run out of time so we can discuss any points missed when I get back later tonight.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would appear from your posts here Radrook, that failing to understand the scientific principle of cumulative repeatable evidence, you've decided you can just believe anything you want and make the claim that science supports every conclusion therefore your conclusion is as good as any.

Are you arguing with yourself here? Because you won't convince anyone familiar with the evidence that it is valid to reject the evidence you reject.

This is an interesting conversation only in the fact that it is yet one more study of how a mind rationalizes false beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

[Ladewig]

Neither are the flying people myths as far-fetched as we might imagine. The South American Indians, the Nazca of Peru are suspected of using hot air balloons in order to view their own gargantuan artwork from heights.

I wasn't referring to hot air balloons, I was referring to winged humans and levitating humans.

There is a human genetic bottleneck.

Would you provide a citation?

[Zygar]

The flood account is found in various distorted forms in all cultures all over the world. Ever wonder why?

Actually, no. There are not. Please name one flood myth from the Americas. One from Australia. One from China.

Well, if you believe they didn't. Why are you expressing amazement that they didn'?

I expressed amazement? What on earth are you talking about?

The Jews were not enslaved. Period. Yet the Bible claims they were. Egyptians made no attempt to set the record straight.

The Egyptians didn't publicise enslaving the Jews because the enslavemet had not been well publicised?

The Egyptians made no attempt to clear their name because no one cared about the Jews. There was no reason to state their case because the Torah wasn't even on their radar. The Torah was the only source of any of this information, and it was not exactly widely available.

BTW

The Catholic Church's roles in choosing among many books which ones were to be considered oofficially inspired and included in the Bible canon. Their task did NOT involve adding nor subtracting. Neither were the biblical books unkown before the Nicene Council. The OT with its Exodus account describing Israel's slavery in Egypt was in existence since the time of Moses, more than a thousand years before the Nicene council.

So were the other OT books. Actually, all the 66 inspired books were available hundreds of years before the council you mention, and were well-read. So it seems to me that now you are conjecturing before checking your statements against historical evidence.

Not at all. Indeed, the Nicene Council did choose what to include. Since there was no previous "Bible", they had nothing from which to add or subtract.

That said, it's possible I was a little hasty since I was thinking of the bible as a whole rather than just the Torah.

[petra10]

Most myths and legends must have some sort of basis of truth to them.The problem start when humans start relating the tale and embellishing it.
It is human nature to make something sound more exciting than it really is.More to the fact people will turn the story into something that suits their own purpose.

Robin Hood, king Arthur, Jesus ect, I am sure did exsist in some form or other.Over the years, and many telling of the tales, for whatever reasons the story starts to grow legs so to speak.


Nowadays making such legends and myths would be quite hard.The fact when something happens in the world, such as hurricane Katrina, there are lots of proven evidence of what really happened in the form of media coverage.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Not really:

In the historical account below we have an ancient historian going out of his way to set things straight in relation to false ideas.


Now wait a second. What you were asked about were the protests over myths and creation accounts. What you have provided is an attempt at a logical approach to explain a natural phenomenon, such as science has always provided. In this instance Herodotus actually considers the correct answer and rejects it. As someone who has actually read and enjoyed The Histories I am particularly concerned by your attempt to misrepresent this work. So, let's look at the passage in context.

Concerning the nature of the river, I was not able to gain any information either from the priests or from others. I was particularly anxious to learn from them why the Nile, at the commencement of the summer solstice, begins to rise, and continues to increase for a hundred days- and why, as soon as that number is past, it forthwith retires and contracts its stream, continuing low during the whole of the winter until the summer solstice comes round again. On none of these points could I obtain any explanation from the inhabitants, though I made every inquiry, wishing to know what was commonly reported- they could neither tell me what special virtue the Nile has which makes it so opposite in its nature to all other streams, nor why, unlike every other river, it gives forth no breezes from its surface.

Some of the Greeks, however, wishing to get a reputation for cleverness, have offered explanations of the phenomena of the river, for which they have accounted in three different ways. Two of these I do not think it worth while to speak of, further than simply to mention what they are. One pretends that the Etesian winds cause the rise of the river by preventing the Nile-water from running off into the sea. But in the first place it has often happened, when the Etesian winds did not blow, that the Nile has risen according to its usual wont; and further, if the Etesian winds produced the effect, the other rivers which flow in a direction opposite to those winds ought to present the same phenomena as the Nile, and the more so as they are all smaller streams, and have a weaker current. But these rivers, of which there are many both in Syria and Libya, are entirely unlike the Nile in this respect.

The second opinion is even more unscientific than the one just mentioned, and also, if I may so say, more marvellous. It is that the Nile acts so strangely, because it flows from the ocean, and that the ocean flows all round the earth.

The third explanation, which is very much more plausible than either of the others, is positively the furthest from the truth; for there is really nothing in what it says, any more than in the other theories. It is, that the inundation of the Nile is caused by the melting of snows. Now, as the Nile flows out of Libya, through Ethiopia, into Egypt, how is it possible that it can be formed of melted snow, running, as it does, from the hottest regions of the world into cooler countries? Many are the proofs whereby any one capable of reasoning on the subject may be convinced that it is most unlikely this should be the case. The first and strongest argument is furnished by the winds, which always blow hot from these regions. The second is that rain and frost are unknown there. Now whenever snow falls, it must of necessity rain within five days;.so that, if there were snow, there must be rain also in those parts. Thirdly, it is certain that the natives of the country are black with the heat, that the kites and the swallows remain there the whole year, and that the cranes, when they fly from the rigours of a Scythian winter, flock thither to pass the cold season. If then, in the country whence the Nile has its source, or in that through which it flows, there fell ever so little snow, it is absolutely impossible that any of these circumstances could take place.

As for the writer who attributes the phenomenon to the ocean, his account is involved in such obscurity that it is impossible to disprove it by argument. For my part I know of no river called Ocean, and I think that Homer, or one of the earlier poets, invented the name, and introduced it into his poetry.

Perhaps, after censuring all the opinions that have been put forward on this obscure subject, one ought to propose some theory of one's own. I will therefore proceed to explain what I think to be the reason of the Nile's swelling in the summer time. During the winter, the sun is driven out of his usual course by the storms, and removes to the upper parts of Libya. This is the whole secret in the fewest possible words; for it stands to reason that the country to which the Sun-god approaches the nearest, and which he passes most directly over, will be scantest of water, and that there the streams which feed the rivers will shrink the most.

To explain, however, more at length, the case is this. The sun, in his passage across the upper parts of Libya, affects them in the following way. As the air in those regions is constantly clear, and the country warm through the absence of cold winds, the sun in his passage across them acts upon them exactly as he wont to act elsewhere in summer, when his path is in the middle of heaven- that is, he attracts the water. After attracting it, he again repels it into the upper regions, where the winds lay hold of it, scatter it, and reduce it to a vapour, whence it naturally enough comes to pass that the winds which blow from this quarter- the south and south-west- are of all winds the most rainy. And my own opinion is that the sun does not get rid of all the water which he draws year by year from the Nile, but retains some about him. When the winter begins to soften, the sun goes back again to his old place in the middle of the heaven, and proceeds to attract water equally from all countries. Till then the other rivers run big, from the quantity of rain-water which they bring down from countries where so much moisture falls that all the land is cut into gullies; but in summer, when the showers fail, and the sun attracts their water, they become low. The Nile, on the contrary, not deriving any of its bulk from rains, and being in winter subject to the attraction of the sun, naturally runs at that season, unlike all other streams, with a less burthen of water than in the summer time. For in summer it is exposed to attraction equally with all other rivers, but in winter it suffers alone. The sun, therefore, I regard as the sole cause of the phenomenon.

It is the sun also, in my opinion, which, by heating the space through which it passes, makes the air in Egypt so dry. There is thus perpetual summer in the upper parts of Libya. Were the position of the heavenly regions reversed, so that the place where now the north wind and the winter have their dwelling became the station of the south wind and of the noon-day, while, on the other hand, the station of the south wind became that of the north, the consequence would be that the sun, driven from the mid-heaven by the winter and the northern gales, would betake himself to the upper parts of Europe, as he now does to those of Libya, and then I believe his passage across Europe would affect the Ister exactly as the Nile is affected at the present day.

And with respect to the fact that no breeze blows from the Nile, I am of opinion that no wind is likely to arise in very hot countries, for breezes love to blow from some cold quarter.


Please explain to me how this passage has anything to do with what was really asked of you? The Greeks tried to explain the world by natural means. They argued with one another about natural explanations. This is a clear example of that practice. It has nothing to do with myth, creation or not.

[Radrook]

It would appear from your posts here Radrook, that failing to understand the scientific principle of cumulative repeatable evidence, you've decided you can just believe anything you want and make the claim that science supports every conclusion therefore your conclusion is as good as any.

What you represent isn't science. It's woo. So in my view I'm not rejecting science as it is normally practiced nor defined.

Are you arguing with yourself here? Because you won't convince anyone familiar with the evidence that it is valid to reject the evidence you reject.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. As for your evidence, that's debatable.

This is an interesting conversation only in the fact that it is yet one more study of how a mind rationalizes false beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

I don't consider abiogenesis overwhelming nor convcincing since there is not a shred of evidence that it happened or that it happens. You wish to call that type of thing evidence? Be my guest. But pleas grant me the right to decline.

[Radrook]

Now wait a second. What you were asked about were the protests over myths and creation accounts. What you have provided is an attempt at a logical approach to explain a natural phenomenon, such as science has always provided. In this instance Herodotus actually considers the correct answer and rejects it. As someone who has actually read and enjoyed The Histories I am particularly concerned by your attempt to misrepresent this work. So, let's look at the passage in context.

Why are you categorizing the world flood as a non-phenomenon?


Please explain to me how this passage has anything to do with what was really asked of you? The Greeks tried to explain the world by natural means. They argued with one another about natural explanations. This is a clear example of that practice. It has nothing to do with myth, creation or not.

Because it shows their concern for the accuracy of statements or claims involving
natural phenomenon such as the global Flood!

[Radrook]

Actually, no. There are not. Please name one flood myth from the Americas. One from Australia. One from China.[quote]

What are YOU talking about????


[quote]I expressed amazement? What on earth are you talking about?

As written, your statements were self-contradictory.


The Jews were not enslaved. Period. Yet the Bible claims they were. Egyptians made no attempt to set the record straight.

The very fact that the Egyptians never challenged that claim speaks volumes.


The Egyptians made no attempt to clear their name because no one cared about the Jews.

Is thatwhy they were invaded twice and had their populations deported into exile by two world powers, because no one cared about the Jews?


There was no reason to state their case because the Torah wasn't even on their radar. The Torah was the only source of any of this information, and it was not exactly widely available.

So Israel was so insignificant in their eyes? I could easily refute that but I won't wasate any further time. At least not today. However, I think your problem is that you are projecting your personal opinion of the Jews on the Egyptians.


bTW

When it comes to choosing whom to believe whether the biblical account or what atheistic skeptical biased scholars say. I choose the former. Especially since the latter have shown their propensity to discredit and distort so often only to grudgingly admit later that they had been wrong.



ll. Indeed, the Nicene Council did choose what to include. Since there was no previous "Bible", they had nothing from which to add or subtract.

The OT and NT books were in existence and being read. That's common theological knowledge.


That said, it's possible I was a little hasty since I was thinking of the bible as a whole rather than just the Torah.

The Christian Bible includes the OT and NT not jusat the Torah.

[Radrook]

I wasn't referring to hot air balloons, I was referring to winged humans and levitating humans.
OK


Would you provide a citation?

Here is an interesting article on the subject.


Excerpt

The small genetic diversity of modern humans indicates that at some stage during the last 100,000 years, the human population dwindled to a very low level. It was out of this small population, with its consequent limited genetic diversity, that today's humans descended. Small pool Estimates of how small the human population became vary but 2,000 is the figure suggested in the latest research. "This estimate does not preclude the presence of other populations of Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) in Africa, although it suggests that they were probably isolated from each other genetically," they say. The authors of the study believe that contemporary worldwide populations descended from one or very few of these populations. If this is the case, humanity came very close to extinction.

http://www.aeroman.de/html/_bottleneck__.html

[Radrook]

Radrook,

I wonder if you would be good enough to read this small excerpt and share your thoughts. Please be as specific and detailed as possible.

From The Inner Reaches of Outer Space, pages 8-11 by Joseph Campbell:

"A decisive, enormous leap out of the confines of all local histories and landscapes occurred in Mesopotamia in the fourth millennium b.c., during the period of the rise of the ziggurats, those storied temple towers, symbolic of the Axis Mundi, which are caricatured in the Bible as the Tower of Babel. The leap was from geography to cosmos, beyond the moon, whereupon the primal, limited, and limiting tribal manner of thought (which the Hebrew prophets chose deliberately to retain) was by the Gentile nations left behind. That was the period when writing was invented; also mathematical measurement, and the wheel. The priestly watchers of the night skies at that time were the first in the world to recognize that there is mathematical regularity in the celestial passages of the seven visible spheres - the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn - along the heaven-way of the Zodiac.

And with that, the idea dawned of a cosmic order, mathematically discoverable, which it should be the function of a governing priesthood to translate from its heavenly revelation into an order of civilized human life. The idea of the hieratic city-state made its appearance at that time, with kings and queens symbolically attired, enacting together with their courts an aristocratic mime in imitation of the celestial display, the king crowned as the moon or the sun, his queen and the other members of their court as planetary presences.

And when the celestial signs appeared that were interpreted as marking the end of an eon, the kings and queens, together with their courts, were ceremoniously buried alive. Sir James G. Frazer, in The Golden Bough (12 volumes, 1907-1915), published evidence from many parts of the world of the practice of such rites. Buried courts have been unearthed from Sumer and Egypt to China.

Some notion of the whole profoundly conceived, macro-microcosmic import of such courtly mimes may be gained from a consideration of the mathematics of the mythological and actual cycles of the calendars to which such rites were attached. For example, in the Hindu sacred epics and Puranas (popular tellings of ancient lore) the number of years reckoned to the present cycle of time, the so called Kali Yuga, is 432,000; the number reckoned in the "great cycle" (mahayuga) within which this yuga falls being 4,320,000.

But then reading one day in the Icelandic Eddas, I discovered that in Othin's (Wotan's) warrior hall, Valhöll, there were 540 doors, through each of which, on the "Day of the Wolf" (that is to say, at the end of the present cycle of time), there would pass 800 divine warriors to engage the antigods in a battle of mutual annihilation. 800 X 540 = 432,000. And so I asked myself how it might ever have come to pass that in tenth-to-thirteenth century Iceland the same number of years were reckoned to the present cycle of time as in India.

In Babylon, I then recalled, there had been a Chaldean priest, Berossos, who, c. 280 b.c., had rendered into Greek an account of the history and mythology of Babylonia, wherein it was told that between the time of the rise of the first city, Kish, and the coming of the Babylonian mythological flood (from which that of the Bible was taken), there elapsed 432,000 years, during which antediluvian era, ten kings reigned. Very long lives! Longer even than Methuselah's (Genesis 5:27), which had been of only 969.

So I turned to the Old Testament (Genesis 5) and counting the number of antediluvian patriarchs, Adam to Noah, discovered, of course, that there were ten. How many years? Adam was 130 years old when he begat Seth, who was 105 when he begat Enosh, and so on, to Noah, who was 600 years old when the flood came: to a grand total, from the first day of Adam's creation to the last drop of rain of Noah's flood, of 1,656 years. Any relation to 432,000? Julius Oppert, a distinguished Jewish Assyriologist of the last century, in 1877 presented before the Royal Society for Sciences in Göttingen a paper on "Dates in Genesis," in which it was shown that in 1,656 years there are 86,400 seven-day weeks. 86,400 / 2 = 43,200.

And so it appears that in the Book of Genesis there are two contrary theologies represented in relation to the Deluge. One is the old tribal, popular tale of a willful, personal creator-god, who saw that "the wickedness of man was great in the earth...and was sorry that he had made man on the earth...and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them' " (Genesis 6:5-7).

The other idea, which is fundamentally contrast, is that of the disguised number, 86,400, which is a deeply hidden reference to the Gentile, Sumero-Babylonian, mathematical cosmology of the ever-revolving cycles of impersonal time, with whole universes and their populations coming into being, flowering for a season of 43,200 (432,000 or 4,320,000) years, dissolving back into the cosmic mother-sea to rest for an equal spell of years before returning, and so again, again, and again.

The Jews, it will be remembered, were for fifty years exiled from their capitol to Babylon (586-539 b.c), when the were subject, willy nilly, to Babylonian influences, so that although the popular, exoteric version of their Deluge legend is from the period of David's kingdom, tenth century or so b.c., the exquisitely secreted indication of a priestly knowledge, beyond that, of a larger, cyclic version of the legend - where the god himself would have come into being and gone out of being with the universe of which he was the lord - is post-Exilic, as are, also, the genealogical datings of Genesis chapter 5, which are so very nicely contrived to join the 600 years of Noah's age at the time of the flood to furnish a total of exactly 1,656."




I took Joseph Campbell's one-semester course on mythology and found it very interesting. However, I found him to be a bit disturbing in one of his comments. Specifically the one in which he admired the self-control of that Buddhist priest who set himself aflame after being doused with gasoline as a protest against the Viet Nam War. The rest of his course was interesting but I don't agree with everything he teaches. In short, if what Campbell teaches contradicts in any way what the Bible clearly teaches, or if he adds or subtracts wily nilly, as he seems to be doing with the Genesis account in this excerpt you posted, then I won't pay him any mind.

[MG1962]

Actually, no. There are not. Please name one flood myth from the Americas. One from Australia. One from China.



Actually from Australia there is. One part of Aboriginal dreaming deals with the ocean rising to cut the land bridge between Tasmania and the mainland, with attention paid to King and Flinders islands and their formation. From memory they where bickering brothers from the same tribe

[tuc0]

Radrook, you are aguing that evolution isn't valid science. Can you give us one example of invalid evolutionist science?

(And then, just for fun, give us one example of valid creationist science. Thank you.)

[Ladewig]

Here is an interesting article on the subject [of a human genetic bottleneck]

ExcerptHumans may have come close to extinction about 70,000 years ago, according to the latest genetic research.

Ah, I see what happened. I made a mistake. When I said:


Evidence against a world-wide flood in the past 10,000 years is overwhelming. There is no mitochondrial bottleneck observed in humans and all other air-breathing animals. Fields ranging from dendrochronolgy to geology indicate that there was no flood in the past 10 millenia.

I assumed that you would understand that I was talking about a bottleneck within the last 10,000 years. I was not referring to a bottleneck ~70,000 years ago. Furthermore, even if we did use that source as evidence of a worldwide flood 70,000 years ago, we see no similar bottleneck for the thousands of reptile, bird, and mammal species. In addition, I find your use of that source rather strange in that (if I recall your statements in another thread correctly) you believe that mankind is less than 7000 years old.

[Ladewig]

Actually, no. There are not. Please name one flood myth from the Americas. One from Australia. One from China.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html includes stories from those areas.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why are you categorizing the world flood as a non-phenomenon?

It was, by all accounts, even if it occurred, a single event not a naturally re-occurring natural phenomenon. Herodotus, in this conjecture about the source of the Nile, is concerned with repetitive flooding of the river -- something amenable to scientific enquiry. So your use of this passage is entirely inappropriate.


Because it shows their concern for the accuracy of statements or claims involving
natural phenomenon such as the global Flood!

No, it shows concern over phenomena that can be investigated, which is not the case with a proposed global flood. Please try again. The passage is inappropriate for the concern cited.

[Terry]

The flood account is found in various distorted forms in all cultures all over the world. Ever wonder why?

Floods are very common. And when you don't have the means to travel large distances, even a local flood can seem like it covers "the whole world".

[petra10]

I am certain if for some reason all photos, news footage ect, that was taken of hurricane Katrina were destroyed.Then in say 500 years time the story would be completely different.
The flood would be 100 times the size it really was, there would be some mysterious reason why it happened and for sure some god or other would be involved in the making and clearing up of the hurricane.

This is why I believe most ancient stories of flood and things should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Radrook,

There are plenty of examples of Herodotus explaining earlier myths through natural means -- Io's story, etc. -- that would better fit as 'protest against earlier myth' than his discussion of the Nile. But even that does not really address the issue initially raised, if for no other reason than the fact that we are discussing two very different cultures. Plus, Herodotus does not directly discount the abduction/rape of several women as told in myth, but only recasts them as possible 'woman stealing' incidents between East and West.

There is, in fact, quite a bit of 'protest' about the historicity of Genesis in the Rabbinic literature, where many of the stories are discussed from a variety of perspectives.

[Zygar]

blah blah blah

Yeah, I guess when you use the bible as your primary historical source, you'll think all that stuff is true.

[Limbo]

In short, if what Campbell teaches contradicts in any way what the Bible clearly teaches


If you think there is easy clarity in the Bible, then you aren't digging deep enough. Modern readability does not equal clarity.


or if he adds or subtracts wily nilly, as he seems to be doing with the Genesis account in this excerpt you posted, then I won't pay him any mind.


Your choice, no one is holding a gun to your head. But I think your impression that he is adding or subtracting is quite wrong. Comparative mythology has a lot to say about religion, and if someone turns a blind eye to all that then they are being too selective to be entirely objective.

[Silentknight]

You know, at first I thought I'd be wasting my time on someone who makes such idiotic claims as the global flood was real, or evolution is a Satanic lie, or there's a conspiracy of atheist scientists to persecute creationists. But then I realized something. He actually has a point! The prevalence of a myth in cultures around the world obviously makes it true.

I now know that werewolves must be real. How else do you explain the fact that werewolf legends appear in literature and folklore from all around the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werewolf#World_literature_and_folklore)? This is a topic of particular interest to me, ever since that fateful night when I was attacked by a strange beast under the full moon. I've been getting these splitting headaches on a regular basis, typically right before nightfall. I have dreams of transforming into a wolf and running with the pack. Finally, on nights when the moon is full, I've found that my senses are heightened. I'm not making this up!

It's a riddle to me. How can you possibly explain this logically? :rolleyes:

[MarkCorrigan]

Hey Radrook, I have a few questions about the flood, if you don't mind.

What happened to the various civilisations who were in existance at the time?

Who on the ark had which STDs? Since they had to be transfered over from before to after, who had what? How did this not lead to everyone getting STD's?

Was the water salty, or fresh?

Given the fact that all animals had to be on in groups larger than 2 if they were clean, and at least two if they were unclean, where was the food stored and how was it kept fresh?

Given the fact that wooden boats over a certain size sink, how were all the animals stored on one boat?

[Radrook]

Yeah, I guess when you use the bible as your primary historical source, you'll think all that stuff is true.

My formal study of history, in which I majored, is not restricted to the biblical account. In any case, the same can be said of your trust in all those atheistic evolutionist texts. What can be expected from you since you use them as your primary source to concoct your idea of human history. See how shallow that sounds?

[Radrook]

Radrook,

There are plenty of examples of Herodotus explaining earlier myths through natural means -- Io's story, etc. -- that would better fit as 'protest against earlier myth' than his discussion of the Nile. But even that does not really address the issue initially raised, if for no other reason than the fact that we are discussing two very different cultures. Plus, Herodotus does not directly discount the abduction/rape of several women as told in myth, but only recasts them as possible 'woman stealing' incidents between East and West.

There is, in fact, quite a bit of 'protest' about the historicity of Genesis in the Rabbinic literature, where many of the stories are discussed from a variety of perspectives.



Rabbinic literature is the worse example you can choose since the Jews were spiritually contaminated during their associuation with pagan cultures after their diaspora and previous deportations to Babylon and Assyria. In fact, they wound up rejecting the Messiah himself so it's little wonder that they eventually even attacked the veracity of their own writings.

BTW
I did try to get a more direct Herodotus example but was unable to via the search engines. Thanx for pointing that out. : )

[Limbo]

Radrook,

Glad you're here.

My next question for you, slightly OT: do you think that satan is an entity that is actively trying to deceive mankind, and do you see the theory of evolution as part of that deception?

[Zygar]

My formal study of history, in which I majored, is not restricted to the biblical account. In any case, the same can be said of your trust in all those atheistic evolutionist texts. What can be expected from you since you use them as your primary source to concoct your idea of human history. See how shallow that sounds?

I prefer impartial sources of information. You have repeatedly admitted that you trust biblical sources over anything else. I trust no religious stance, therefore I have no bias on my trust.

History isn't broken into "religious" and "anti-religious" texts. It's broken into partial and impartial. Religious sources are partial. So are some nonreligious sources. Personally, I look for the most impartial sources I can find.

[MarkCorrigan]

My formal study of history, in which I majored, is not restricted to the biblical account. In any case, the same can be said of your trust in all those atheistic evolutionist texts. What can be expected from you since you use them as your primary source to concoct your idea of human history. See how shallow that sounds?

What on earth are you on about? Are all books that don't agree with Biblical history (that's history textbooks then) atheistic?

Yes, you probably think they are, don't you?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Rabbinic literature is the worse example you can choose since the Jews were spiritually contaminated during their associuation with pagan cultures after their diaspora and previous deportations to Babylon and Assyria. In fact, they wound up rejecting the Messiah himself so it's little wonder that they eventually even attacked the veracity of their own writings.



Whatever interpretation you want to put on an entire race of people regarding their potential spiritual contamination is totally beside the point. You asked, "where was the protest?" -- it was there.

We can add any interpretation we wish to any group of people to try and invalidate their ideas, but it does not vanish those ideas.

There has always been more than one way to interpret scripture. The nature of words is that their meaning depends on context and interperative frame. That is why truth is so difficult to find in writing (depending, of course, on how one defines truth and for any given value of 'true').

[Radrook]

Whatever interpretation you want to put on an entire race of people regarding their potential spiritual contamination is totally beside the point.
It isn't a personal interpretation it's a well-known fact that the Jews were religiously contaminated by their exile in Babylon and returned from exile with pagan ideas. One was the refusal to say the divine name for example. Something completely alien to the teachings of the OT. When Jesus appeared, they had slipped further into giving more importance to placing traditions of men than to the spirit of the law as Jesus pointed out.

You asked, "where was the protest?" -- it was there.

I was not requesting heretical statements from those who are expected to have known better. I was requesting statements from ancient secular historians.



We can add any interpretation we wish to any group of people to try and invalidate their ideas, but it does not vanish those ideas.

Of course not. Neither am I adding anything to what they say.
But if their ideas drastically deviate from an original text-I'll be damned if I don't point it out.

There has always been more than one way to interpret scripture. The nature of words is that their meaning depends on context and interpretative frame.

And its deviation from that context and frame which skews the interpretations and makes then stand out like the proverbial sore thumb.

That is why truth is so difficult to find in writing (depending, of course, on how one defines truth and for any given value of 'true').

If the source being used for counter-argument purposes is suspect then it becomes unacceptable for purposes intended. So as you said to me about my supposed misuse of Herodotus I say to you, try again. But this time with a source less suspect than the Rabbinical writings.

[Radrook]

Radrook,

Glad you're here.

Thanx

My next question for you, slightly OT: do you think that satan is an entity that is actively trying to deceive mankind, and do you see the theory of evolution as part of that deception?

Yes onboth counts.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It isn't a personal interpretation it's a well-known fact that the Jews were religiously contaminated by their exile in Babylon and returned from exile with pagan ideas. One was the refusal to say the divine name for example. Something completely alien to the teachings of the OT. When Jesus appeared, they had slipped further into giving more importance to placing traditions of men than to the spirit of the law as Jesus pointed out.



I was not requesting heretical statements from those who are expected to have known better. I was requesting statements from ancient secular historians.


Of course not. Neither am I adding anything to what they say.
But if their ideas drastically deviate from an original text-I'll be damned if I don't point it out.



And its deviation from that context and frame which skews the interpretations and makes then stand out like the proverbial sore thumb.



If the source being used for counter-argument purposes is suspect then it becomes unacceptable for purposes intended. So as you said to me about my supposed misuse of Herodotus I say to you, try again. But this time with a source less suspect than the Rabbinical writings.



I am going to overlook the bigotry in your response and just let those statements stand for what they are, so let us return to the logic problem.

You asked for protest. I gave you those protests. You have decided to categorically reject this information based on your perceived dislike of the manner of speech -- because you think the Jews are spiritually contaminated.

But, for this purpose, it does not matter one iota if they were contaminated spiritually, physically, or inhabited by the soul of James Brown. There were protests in earlier writings.

Then you ask for ancient historical writings. Hmmm, Jewish ancient historical writings not included in the Bible........and these would be what writings exactly? History, as inquiry, did not exist until Herodotus and Thucydides, so any 'protest' could not exist until that time at the very least. Historical writing, in that critical vein, was not an early Jewish practice, so the absence of protest in such writers is a direct result of there not being any such writers until the time of Josephus.

Finally, to your last point -- what I pointed out to you with your example from Herodotus was a logical error. You misapplied a passage. I gave you direction to the correct sort of passage, which if you had read the work would have been immediately apparent, since those examples are all from the first part of the first book. This is in no way analogous to your rejection of the 'protests' in rabbinical writings based on what you call the 'spiritual contamination of the Jews'.

[Radrook]

I am going to overlook the bigotry in your response and just let those statements stand for what they are, so let us return to the logic problem.

Perhaps it was the wrong choice of words. What I meant was that they were influenced in their conclusions by non-biblical sources.

You asked for protest. I gave you those protests. You have decided to categorically reject this information based on your perceived dislike of the manner of speech -- because you think the Jews are spiritually contaminated.

As I said, wrong choice of words. My apologies. My rejection isn't based on the manner of speech.


But, for this purpose, it does not matter one iota if they were contaminated spiritually, physically, or inhabited by the soul of James Brown. There were protests in earlier writings.

It does matter in the evaluation of the protest although, I doubt that's what they choose to call it or even view it as such.


[Then you ask for ancient historical writings. Hmmm, Jewish ancient historical writings not included in the Bible........and these would be what writings exactly? History, as inquiry, did not exist until Herodotus and Thucydides, so any 'protest' could not exist until that time at the very least. Historical writing, in that critical vein, was not an early Jewish practice, so the absence of protest in such writers is a direct result of there not being any such writers until the time of Josephus.

And Josephus confirms the biblical writings as far as I can recall.

Finally, to your last point -- what I pointed out to you with your example from Herodotus was a logical error. You misapplied a passage. I gave you direction to the correct sort of passage, which if you had read the work would have been immediately apparent, since those examples are all from the first part of the first book. This is in no way analogous to your rejection of the 'protests' in rabbinical writings based on what you call the 'spiritual contamination of the Jews'.

You are right. My Herodotus example lacked sufficient specificity.

BTW
Again my apologies for giving unnecessary offense.

[Damien Evans]

I didn't say they were conclusive evidence. However, the similarities are striking and should provoke some thought on the matter instead of unskeptically brushing them aside as happy coincidences. About dragons, we aren't 100% sure whether this universal referral to these animals is can be dismissed as a happy coincidences either. The Chinese dragon, for example, is strongly suspected as being based on an actual animal which lived in China's lakes. Here is an interesting article:

Chinese Dragon Fossil
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK8Rk.5HbhsBvxdrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=134148b0v/EXP=1206903953/**http%3a//www.weirdasianews.com/2007/06/29/real-dragon-fossils-on-display-in-china/

The stories of Giants aren't all myths. They have been confirmed via archeological digs which have found people of extraordinary size.

Giants
http://www.stevequayle.com/index.html

Neither are the flying people myths as far-fetched as we might imagine. The South American Indians, the Nazca of Peru are suspected of using hot air balloons in order to view their own gargantuan artwork from heights.

Hot air ballooning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hot air balloon pilot and ... speculation that hot air balloons were used by the Nazca Indians of Peru some ... Possible prehistoric Nazca hot air balloon ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_lines




There is a human genetic bottleneck.



Nothing which believers can provide will ever be considered conclusive. It will be argued around, discredited and explained away in one form or the other. The problem is, and will continue to be, that atheist scientists are extremely reluctant to give the slightest credence to anything which might even remotely confirm the biblical account.

Just yesterday I was watching a documentary about a recently discovered underwater city near the coast of one of Japan's islands. Despite the repeated observations by other scientists who went personally to the site and examined the archeological evidence and who swear that this city is indeed a city, and not some anomaly caused by nature, one prominent atheist scientist whose opinion would overturn the prevalent narrow minded skepticism refused to even go and take a look. That's the prevalent modus modus operandi.

Japanese Underwater City Discovered
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKXPke5HRg4BBV1rCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12pahpdan/EXP=1206903631/**http%3a//donklephant.com/2007/09/03/japanese-underwater-city-uncovered/

BTW
I have run out of time so we can discuss any points missed when I get back later tonight.

:dl:

That "chinese dragon fossil" is the worst fake I've ever seen!

It makes Piltdown Man look real, it's that bad!

[-Fran-]

:dl:

That "chinese dragon fossil" is the worst fake I've ever seen!

It makes Piltdown Man look real, it's that bad!

My goodness :eye-poppi I followed that link and I can't... I just CAN NOT believe that anyone would think that "dragon fossil" is the real thing. I mean... come on!! :D

[articulett]

Golly, can't wait to see that dragon DNA... I wonder what the gene for "fire breathing" is?

[Ladewig]

The Chinese dragon, for example, is strongly suspected as being based on an actual animal which lived in China's lakes. Here is an interesting article:

Chinese Dragon Fossil
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK8Rk.5HbhsBvxdrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=134148b0v/EXP=1206903953/**http%3a//www.weirdasianews.com/2007/06/29/real-dragon-fossils-on-display-in-china/


If by interesting article, you mean laughably absurd, then I agree. Did you even look at the accompanying photo!?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those examples, Radrook, add nothing in support of your position. Fake evidence aside, you are merely providing evidence. Provide some evidence of God.

[Radrook]

If the dragon fossil is fake-can someone provide the evidencec that it's fake. Or are you just chortling as a knee-jerk reaction to the article without offering any reason for rejecting it as fake and expecting others to mindlessly join in your celebration simply because you need to feel that the fossil is fake.

Which is it?

Instead of childishly giggling, please provide the counter-evidence for my edification.

Thanx

[Radrook]

Those examples, Radrook, add nothing in support of your position. Fake evidence aside, you are merely providing evidence. Provide some evidence of God.

The giants are true archeological finds. So your classifying them as fake proves NOTHING except that you are willing to clasiffy anything as fake as long as it suits your ateeistic prime directive. As for evidence of God, God isn't on trial here and neither am I. To be honest, considering your disrespectful annoying attitude, I'm really not that not interested in convincing you. So if convincing is what you are in need of, I guess that will have to be attempted by someone else. Although in view of your atheistic vehemence- I don't recommend the time wastage.

[Radrook]

I'll miss that laughing dog. Oh well.

[-Fran-]

If the dragon fossil is fake-can someone provide the evidencec that it's fake. Or are you just chortling as a knee-jerk reaction to the article without offering any reason for rejecting it as fake and expecting others to mindlessly join in your celebration simply because you need to feel that the fossil is fake.

Which is it?

Instead of childishly giggling, please provide the counter-evidence for my edification.

Thanx

Oh dear...

The object in the picture is a prop in a mockumentary/fantasy film made by Animal Planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Dragon_%28Docudrama/Fantasy%29

There's another picture of your "Chinese dragon" as well. Said to have been found frozen in the Carpathian mountains in the mockumentary, not in China. Which fits the folklore rather well, because the image you provided in your first link shows a dragon the way it is popularly depicted in European lore, not in Chinese lore.

[This Guy]

SNIP

The stories of Giants aren't all myths. They have been confirmed via archeological digs which have found people of extraordinary size.

Giants
http://www.stevequayle.com/index.html

SNIP

I think I'm on ignore by Radrook, but what the heck.

Has anyone else looked at this link?

Some excerpts to show it's quality -

From the linked page we find a link for Giants on the left side. Click that link and we find - http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/index2.html

"I have invested over 30 years researching the vast history of giants. It has, for the most part, been kept from the public. Proof of giants' existence - their skeletal remains - has been quickly secreted away in obscure museums, when not destroyed. Additionally, time has cloaked and sugar-coated these creatures' true perverse nature, the majority too vile, too demonic for bedtime stories. However, history is replete with their tales of unimaginable cruelty, sexual perversity, cannibalism and pagan rituals. This is only the beginning. Some things are best forgotten. . . or are they?"

From this page - http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/articles/solomon_giants.html

We have -

"Contained in this website is extraordinary information that brings to the forefront worldwide issues that has been tormenting intellectuals for centuries. It is about two phenomenal discoveries that I have found existing in the Solomon Islands and this Website is a further attempt once again to bring them to the attention of the Modern World.
The first discovery is about how the people of the Solomon Islands have shared their Islands with ‘previously undiscovered to the modern world’ race of hominoids for millennia right to this present day, and for a variety of reasons explained, this has not been known about by the rest of the World, until now. The second discovery is about the whereabouts of hidden UFO Bases that I have found existing in the Solomon Islands for quite possibly the same amount of time, and how there seems to be a link between the Giants and the Extraterrestrials making the Solomon Islands their home. "

So it seems that not only is Satan deceiving us with Evilution, but it appears there is a world wide conspiracy to hide the truth about giants from the general public. I suspect the hidden UFO bases are the reason for the secrecy. But luckily we have Steve Quayle to keep us informed.

:covereyes

[volatile]

I'm on ignore too, but in the vague hope he glances at this:

Radrook - do you ever have any doubts whatsoever as to the veracity of your beliefs when you engage in these kinds of discussions? Is there not a flicker of clarity? A slight feeling that the Church you subscribe to has been lying to you, misleading you all these years? Ever?

[articulett]

If the dragon fossil is fake-can someone provide the evidencec that it's fake. Or are you just chortling as a knee-jerk reaction to the article without offering any reason for rejecting it as fake and expecting others to mindlessly join in your celebration simply because you need to feel that the fossil is fake.

Which is it?

Instead of childishly giggling, please provide the counter-evidence for my edification.

Thanx

If it was real... it would be front page news... we'd be getting it's DNA and studying it further and finding out where it fits on the tree of life.

We can't disprove every lucky charm or web page nuttery or Nation Enquirer article... why don't you prove to us that leprechauns are fake or Zeus... and you will understand how ridiculous your request is. It seems the most inane evidence is enough to prop up your delusions and all the evidence in the world is never enough when it means you have to admit you've been fooled.

[Zygar]

If the dragon fossil is fake-can someone provide the evidencec that it's fake. Or are you just chortling as a knee-jerk reaction to the article without offering any reason for rejecting it as fake and expecting others to mindlessly join in your celebration simply because you need to feel that the fossil is fake.

The main reason it looks to be fake is that the only reference to it is a single web article that was published in 2005. That account lacks many important specific details which are standard in evidence. Such as the location it was discovered, where it is stored, who found it...

Also, in the past 3 years, someone else should have at least published a separate account of the fossil. If it's not fake, find some more evidence of it. Copies of the same article and picture do not count. I've looked and found none.

[This Guy]

I doubt Radrook will see this, but again, what the heck.

It amazes me that the very flimsy evidence given is used, apparently, by Radrook to support the Biblical accounts of giants, dragons and other things, yet he chooses to ignore the massive about of evidence from multiple branches of science (paleontology, genetics, and geography to name a few) that support evolution.

I hope he has other sources of evidence than the ones given, for dragons and giants. We know that there have been people with growth disorders that have made them appear as giants, when compared to normal sized people. There is at least one picture on the link he gave for giants, that I suspect shows two such cases. But to my knowledge there are no serious evidences for the existence of a race of "Giants".

The great thing about this thread is that it shows to what extent someone will go to support their beliefs, despite a huge amount of conflicting evidence, and little supporting evidence. And all the while, he considers those with opposing views to be the gullible ones! I think there is a psychology lesson here somewhere.

[Ladewig]

I doubt Radrook will see this, but again, what the heck.

It amazes me that the very flimsy evidence given is used, apparently, by Radrook to support the Biblical accounts of giants, dragons and other things, yet he chooses to ignore the massive about of evidence from multiple branches of science (paleontology, genetics, and geography to name a few) that support evolution.

You may not have seen Radrook's posts in which he or she claims that the paleontologists, geneticists, and geologists are conspiring to lie about the ages of the Earth and of mankind. The majority of scientists from a wide variety of fields actively suppresses evidence that shows that the Bible provides an accurate and definitive history of the Universe. Therefore everything at AnswersInGenesis.Org is far more worthy of consideration than anything found at TalkOrigins.Org.

[-Fran-]

Instead of childishly giggling, please provide the counter-evidence for my edification.

Thanx

Hello?? *listens to the echo*

I stopped giggling and did find counter-evidence to your fake dragon, that is AT LEAST as credible as your "evidence" (quite a bit more credible actually, even if it was from wikipedia). And it literally took me less than a minute to find something that strongly suggests quite another explanation to that picture, even though I've never seen this dragon picture before. And my google-fu is sure not stronger than anyone elses ;)

So, am I know on ignore? I would like to know if you still believe in the dragon on that picture you provided as being a genuine Chinese fossil, and in that case, why? Would you still believe it if you could contact the man who designed the prop? Or would you think he was somehow in on the conspiracy?

[This Guy]

You may not have seen Radrook's posts in which he or she claims that the paleontologists, geneticists, and geologists are conspiring to lie about the ages of the Earth and of mankind. The majority of scientists from a wide variety of fields actively suppresses evidence that shows that the Bible provides an accurate and definitive history of the Universe. Therefore everything at AnswersInGenesis.Org is far more worthy of consideration than anything found at TalkOrigins.Org.

Which also exposes something of the thought process used to defend a poorly defensible belief, IMHO. I suspect that if Radrook has really checked out Talk Origins, he did it with an extreme bias, rather than an open mind. My guess though, is that he has not, and will not check out any source that might cause a conflict between facts and his belief.

I find this most enlightening!

I suspect most of us here have given up a belief, or concept, that we held dear at one time or another. I know I have. I know that it can be very hard to do. But even in my most "Christian" days I would have at least considered counter arguments to my faith. I would have (and did, in fact) looked for the truth, whatever it was. So, what drives some people to test their faith by seeking facts, while others ignore facts, and blindly stay with and defend their beliefs even when, in some cases, it's so obvious that there is a gap between your faith and facts?

Questions of this nature are what made me desire to learn psychology. I wish I had gone in that direction when I was young, rather than the path that got me where I am (where ever the heck that is! ;))

[Skeptic Ginger]

You may not have seen Radrook's posts in which he or she .....I have a stereotyped vision this is a guy. I would be shocked to hear a female discuss religion with this particular conviction expressed. There are plenty of fundamental female theists but somehow I picture them expressing it differently.

[Ladewig]

I have a stereotyped vision this is a guy. I would be shocked to hear a female discuss religion with this particular conviction expressed. There are plenty of fundamental female theists but somehow I picture them expressing it differently.

I'd put Radrook in the same class as DOC and Kurious Kathy; so either sex is possible.