[Split Thread] Geological and archaeological evidence for/against the flood/CTE - Page 12

Halfcentaur · 1st July 2012, 09:52 PM

Why is it that only those who were taught the story of Noah see a reason to even suspect this global flood happened? Is everyone who is not a flood believer deluded by the dogmatic religion of science, is science blinded to this event because many scientists are atheists? Why is nobody else seeing anything in nature which suggests anything about the story took place?

The idea that it's due to people having preconceived notions about those who subscribe to the story seems like a dodge to me.

Lowpro · 1st July 2012, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Why is it that only those who were taught the story of Noah see a reason to even suspect this global flood happened? Is everyone who is not a flood believer deluded by the dogmatic religion of science, is science blinded to this event because many scientists are atheists? Why is nobody else seeing anything in nature which suggests anything about the story took place?

The idea that it's due to people having preconceived notions about those who subscribe to the story seems like a dodge to me.

Ya know that's really the worst thing about the story of Genesis. If it weren't here, there would be no suspicion to the origins of the Earth/everything else with the evidence we have and there wouldn't be this despicable attempts by the religious to force a wedge strategy in education. No other book of the Bible causes as much problems for education than Genesis, and yet it's the most obviously WRONG book of the Bible. How is this even happening? It's baffling.

pakeha · 1st July 2012, 11:25 PM

^
That

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

...To be honest, I suspect that most of the "participants" (if heckling and insulting is categorized as "participation") in this thread are in the same situation I am -- the difference being that they by default accept the orthodoxy rather than creationist alternative explanations, without having the deeper understanding to actually evaluate the two.

Originally Posted by AdMan

Then perhaps you can help explain why mythological fairy tales deserve to be considered alongside orthodox science in the first place.

Navigator · 2nd July 2012, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Knowing what a star is would not impact or improve their life in any meaningful way. Understanding the need to share resources within the tribe was paramount to their survival. Communal use of resources is a cornerstone of most aboriginal culture, even there concept of ownership in general is very different to our western thinking.

Knowing if there is life on Mars will not impact or improve our lives in a meaningful way.
Human beings understanding the need to share all resources with each other is paramount to our collective survival. Communal sharing of resources is a wise use of intelligence.

This is one main reason why we are not succeeding in our evolution.

Wondering about the flood of long time gone is distraction from more immediate concerns.

I think so.

Aridas · 2nd July 2012, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Ya know that's really the worst thing about the story of Genesis. If it weren't here, there would be no suspicion to the origins of the Earth/everything else with the evidence we have and there wouldn't be this despicable attempts by the religious to force a wedge strategy in education. No other book of the Bible causes as much problems for education than Genesis, and yet it's the most obviously WRONG book of the Bible. How is this even happening? It's baffling.

Ehh... I wouldn't go that far, either in saying that the Bible caused it or that there would be no suspicion, if it weren't for the Bible.

The root of the problem lies elsewhere, of course.

Lowpro · 2nd July 2012, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Ehh... I wouldn't go that far, either in saying that the Bible caused it or that there would be no suspicion, if it weren't for the Bible.

The root of the problem lies elsewhere, of course.

I'm accusing Genesis specifically, from the origins of man to the flood etc etc. If it weren't for Genesis there wouldn't be any resources dedicated to trying to prove a fairy tale. After seeing how well science progresses WITHOUT Genesis (determining evolution, archaeology, etc) it's almost disgusting that there are fringe people who not only take it seriously but delude others by saying "Genesis is true, no matter what evidence says against it...of course if the evidence can/may support it then let science blind you"

You wouldn't have the outcry of idiots angry with Evolution or cosmology (assuming this of course, who knows what else religious people may try to replace it with) if it was for once and all agreed by everyone, religious and otherwise that Genesis is complete bollocks in veracity and is just a story, not history.

Aridas · 2nd July 2012, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

I'm accusing Genesis specifically, from the origins of man to the flood etc etc. If it weren't for Genesis there wouldn't be any resources dedicated to trying to prove a fairy tale. After seeing how well science progresses WITHOUT Genesis (determining evolution, archaeology, etc) it's almost disgusting that there are fringe people who not only take it seriously but delude others by saying "Genesis is true, no matter what evidence says against it...of course if the evidence can/may support it then let science blind you"

You wouldn't have the outcry of idiots angry with Evolution or cosmology (assuming this of course, who knows what else religious people may try to replace it with) if it was for once and all agreed by everyone, religious and otherwise that Genesis is complete bollocks in veracity and is just a story, not history.

And I'm not accusing Genesis itself of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Interestingly enough, I find a number of the stories in it interesting, for various reasons. Not particularly believable, these days, but interesting. I am accusing those who are and were blatantly more interested in supporting their desires than accurate representations of reality. To a lesser degree, I am accusing those who are educated badly enough in the relevant matters or too readily give into confirmation bias that they don't even realize that "We will ignore any and all evidence that does not support our desired conclusion" is an instant red flag for trustworthiness, no matter whether one agrees with the desired conclusion or not.

Lowpro · 2nd July 2012, 01:21 AM

I feel like we're saying the exact same thing >.> however the fact that the story's in the wrong place at the wrong time is a bit irrelevant to me as far as how it's considered in determining its veracity.

But I agree that maybe it's more the people to blame than the book but I cannot help thinking that if it weren't for the book itself we'd be better off.

Multivac · 2nd July 2012, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Knowing if there is life on Mars will not impact or improve our lives in a meaningful way.

Knowing that we are not alone in the Universe would make a huge difference to many people. It might not improve our lives, but it would certainly change many peoples perspectives, as it would drastically increase the chances of us meeting other intelligence entities.

Religious zealots would want to know what god they believed in and would try to convert them. Some religious nutters would worship them as gods, and kill people in their name.

Think of the theological debates as to wheter or not these newly discovered lifeforms were part of god's plan, whether they have been saved by JC or, if not, can they be saved?

Personally, as a life long atheist, it would make a difference to how I perceive the Universe, even if the lifeforms discovered were very simple.

dafydd · 2nd July 2012, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

This is one main reason why we are not succeeding in our evolution.

You misunderstand evolution.

Lowpro · 2nd July 2012, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

You misunderstand evolution.

I think he meant evolution in a colloqial fashion >.>

ddt · 2nd July 2012, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

A very, very good chance. Not one that's going to resolve itself in the context of this thread, however.

When/if you do so, maybe you could also (re)visit the paper drkitten discussed with you in this thread from 2009?

Belz... · 2nd July 2012, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I take that as a tacit admission that your "knowledge" in this area is based on your faith in experts.

Yes, I'm sure it is. Some of us have some basic knowledge of science, but so what if we don't ? We know enough of how science works to know it's better than blind faith in a book written by people who simply recalled some old oral legend. Your mention of faith is quite ironic.

Belz... · 2nd July 2012, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

You should trust sources because they match up with reality or are verified by a large number of other reputable sources.

Yes! To ~~Obi-Wan~~ Tricky you listen. Reality ! Remember your failure with reality !

GeeMack · 2nd July 2012, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yes, I'm sure it is. Some of us have some basic knowledge of science, but so what if we don't ? We know enough of how science works to know it's better than blind faith in a book written by people who simply recalled some old oral legend. Your mention of faith is quite ironic.

Yep. It's that old dishonest Christian canard, "You believe, I believe, so I could be just as correct as you," crap. There is no geological or archaeological evidence which would support the notion that Noah's flood actually occurred. None. Nowhere within the immense body of geological and archaeological information we have. Once the conversation has gotten that far along, and the Christians can't pick and poke at some silly and irrelevant minutiae, lying to themselves and others is the only place they have left to go.

Tricky · 2nd July 2012, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

This is one main reason why we are not succeeding in our evolution.

Since evolution has no goal, it is impossible to judge whether we are "succeeding" or not. Humans define what "success" means. If it it means that we become one of the dominant species on the planet, then yes we're succeeding well. But other species have done this. Cyanobacteria were once the predominant organism on earth, but they excreted what was poison to them, and they died back considerably. (Fortunately for us, their excrement was oxygen, which paved the way for more advanced life.) If success is judged by longevity, then the Horshoe Crab or the Coelacanth have survived a long time, but in very low numbers.

Belz... · 2nd July 2012, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Knowing if there is life on Mars will not impact or improve our lives in a meaningful way.

Yeah, and the same can be said of building those ridiculous flying machines.

Belz... · 2nd July 2012, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Yep. It's that old dishonest Christian canard, "You believe, I believe, so I could be just as correct as you," crap.

Indeed. Equivocation until they think it's 50-50. Good odds, right ? Unfortunately, not only is it false equivocation, it's also a false dichotomy.

tsig · 2nd July 2012, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I take that as a tacit admission that your "knowledge" in this area is based on your faith in experts.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

As I have questions in this subject area, Tricky is the one I'll approach.

So after accusing others as lacking knowledge and having faith in experts you're going to have faith in Tricky as an expert.

Belz... · 2nd July 2012, 06:53 AM

Makes sense to me.

AvalonXQ · 2nd July 2012, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

So after accusing others as lacking knowledge and having faith in experts you're going to have faith in Tricky as an expert.

No. If I have questions about orthodox geology, I'll ask Tricky those questions. That doesn't mean I'm going to "have faith in" Tricky's answers.

I Ratant · 2nd July 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm pretty sure the creationists label all of those archeological sites as post-Flood.

.
They have to, to be consistent in their denial.
But the sciences (plural) all converge on dates before, and sometimes way before any Flood, with no evidence of that Flood at all from as far back as the sciences (plural) be read the evidence.
Note the sciences (plural) have to come to the same conclusion when approaching the situation from many different viewpoints and purposes, or the method of arrival at a conclusion will be considered incorrect when there's a significant variation from the others in the end result.
And the difference can be examined, to detect any errors in the process.
That's science.

I Ratant · 2nd July 2012, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Ya know that's really the worst thing about the story of Genesis. If it weren't here, there would be no suspicion to the origins of the Earth/everything else with the evidence we have and there wouldn't be this despicable attempts by the religious to force a wedge strategy in education. No other book of the Bible causes as much problems for education than Genesis, and yet it's the most obviously WRONG book of the Bible. How is this even happening? It's baffling.

.
Every culture has its creation myths. We're stuck with that one.
"Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were" has many creation myths, all of them describing how any one culture sees the beginnings, from their viewpoint.
Lots of gods given authority over different aspects of the world, and life.

I Ratant · 2nd July 2012, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Knowing if there is life on Mars will not impact or improve our lives in a meaningful way.
Human beings understanding the need to share all resources with each other is paramount to our collective survival. Communal sharing of resources is a wise use of intelligence.

This is one main reason why we are not succeeding in our evolution.

Wondering about the flood of long time gone is distraction from more immediate concerns.

I think so.

.
To the au-contriare!
We are succeeding in our evolution, but not in the way it usually goes in nature.
We're interfering with the natural process with our health cares, providing sustenance, and warfare beyond anything nature unassisted would be doing.

I Ratant · 2nd July 2012, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

I'm accusing Genesis specifically, from the origins of man to the flood etc etc. If it weren't for Genesis there wouldn't be any resources dedicated to trying to prove a fairy tale. After seeing how well science progresses WITHOUT Genesis (determining evolution, archaeology, etc) it's almost disgusting that there are fringe people who not only take it seriously but delude others by saying "Genesis is true, no matter what evidence says against it...of course if the evidence can/may support it then let science blind you"

You wouldn't have the outcry of idiots angry with Evolution or cosmology (assuming this of course, who knows what else religious people may try to replace it with) if it was for once and all agreed by everyone, religious and otherwise that Genesis is complete bollocks in veracity and is just a story, not history.

.
Genesis comes from Gilgamesh.
And that's a better ripping good yarn.

AvalonXQ · 2nd July 2012, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Every culture has its creation myths. We're stuck with that one.
"Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were" has many creation myths, all of them describing how any one culture sees the beginnings, from their viewpoint.
Lots of gods given authority over different aspects of the world, and life.

I loved that book when I was a kid.

I Ratant · 2nd July 2012, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

I feel like we're saying the exact same thing >.> however the fact that the story's in the wrong place at the wrong time is a bit irrelevant to me as far as how it's considered in determining its veracity.

But I agree that maybe it's more the people to blame than the book but I cannot help thinking that if it weren't for the book itself we'd be better off.

.
We'd have some other tale of things supernatural that would be upheld as THE TRUTH!
Every culture has those.
Are we any worse?
It's the northern Europeans with Genesis in their book of "truth" that conquered every other culture in the world, after all.

I Ratant · 2nd July 2012, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yeah, and the same can be said of building those ridiculous flying machines.

.
Knowing there was life on Mars, the first question that would be asked is "Have they been saved?"
And that would provide the impetus to get there.

Share the misery, as it were.

catsmate1 · 2nd July 2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Do we all agree that there is no geological or archaeological evidence for the Flood?

Of course. The idea of the biblical flood being a real event is just silly.

TimCallahan · 2nd July 2012, 11:13 AM

Here's something that could be used as a pass / fail test of the historicity of the Flood: If the ark came to rest on the slopes of Mt. Ararat in what is now eastern Turkey, bot was originally part of Armenia - or, to adhere more closely to the text, "on the mountains of Ararat - then all species of land animal should show signs of genetic drift, etc. pointing back to Armenia as their point of origin.

So, AvalonXQ, would you accept this as a pass/ fail test of the scientific validity of the flood? While you're considering this, perhaps you can explain to me how it was that all the kangaroos hopped to Australia from Armenia, along with all other marsupials except the opossum (BTW, how'd they get across the straits), without leaving any skeletal remains along the way. Also, how is it that the marsupials made it to Australia, but none of the placental mammals did, until they were brought there by human beings? For example, why didn't any of the tigers follow he 'roos and wombats down under?

AvalonXQ · 2nd July 2012, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Here's something that could be used as a pass / fail test of the historicity of the Flood: If the ark came to rest on the slopes of Mt. Ararat in what is now eastern Turkey, bot was originally part of Armenia - or, to adhere more closely to the text, "on the mountains of Ararat - then all species of land animal should show signs of genetic drift, etc. pointing back to Armenia as their point of origin.

So, AvalonXQ, would you accept this as a pass/ fail test of the scientific validity of the flood?

That seems reasonable to me, yes.

AdMan · 2nd July 2012, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That seems reasonable to me, yes.

I hope you get around to the second part of Tim's post. I've always wondered about how YECs explain this myself:

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

While you're considering this, perhaps you can explain to me how it was that all the kangaroos hopped to Australia from Armenia, along with all other marsupials except the opossum (BTW, how'd they get across the straits), without leaving any skeletal remains along the way. Also, how is it that the marsupials made it to Australia, but none of the placental mammals did, until they were brought there by human beings? For example, why didn't any of the tigers follow he 'roos and wombats down under?

TimCallahan · 2nd July 2012, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Here's something that could be used as a pass / fail test of the historicity of the Flood: If the ark came to rest on the slopes of Mt. Ararat in what is now eastern Turkey, bot was originally part of Armenia - or, to adhere more closely to the text, "on the mountains of Ararat - then all species of land animal should show signs of genetic drift, etc. pointing back to Armenia as their point of origin.

Since AvalonXQ has accepted this as a valid pass / fail test for the historic / scientific validity of the Flood, does anyone know of a specific species we can use as test animals? We might also use plant species, such as wildflowers.

Tricky · 2nd July 2012, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Since AvalonXQ has accepted this as a valid pass / fail test for the historic / scientific validity of the Flood, does anyone know of a specific species we can use as test animals? We might also use plant species, such as wildflowers.

Koalas are the usual choice. They are very sedentary, sometimes moving no more than a few feet from where they were born. They have a very restricted diet...

This guy says it pretty well.

Originally Posted by Michael Archer, Dean of the Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales

God declared that all except two of every living thing would be drowned by zillions of tonnes of floodwater from somewhere. The lucky two of everything, including two of all their parasites and disease organisms, were shoe-horned into the Ark to bob about on the floodwaters for a year. Presumably on the passenger list were at least two very prolific gum trees to provide the half tonne of leaves a healthy pair of Koalas would need to survive. At the end of the cruise, the floodwaters, which had been deep enough to cover Mount Everest, went away to somewhere and the Ark settled on top of Mount Ararat in Turkey. (As support for the truth of this legend, 'Arkeologist' historian Allen Roberts claims to have identified the remains of the Ark on the slopes of Mount Ararat—in the form of what geologist Ian Plimer has shown to be a very large pile of dried mud.) After the Ark landed, everything from dinosaurs to Dodos disembarked onto the flood-devastated Earth and slipped, flopped, flapped or swam unerringly to appropriate parts of the globe, leaving no trace of their passage along the way. The two Koalas with their prolific gum trees then crossed the barren lands and oceans (all 'flesh' not in the Ark had been destroyed by the flood) to re-establish in Australia where they have lived happily ever after.

Lukraak_Sisser · 2nd July 2012, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Since AvalonXQ has accepted this as a valid pass / fail test for the historic / scientific validity of the Flood, does anyone know of a specific species we can use as test animals? We might also use plant species, such as wildflowers.

None really. Prior to extensive human shipping all larger lifeforms were pretty much confined to their respective continents. Mitochondrial DNA testing is the commonly used technique as that DNA is quite stable and has to be transferred maternally. This shows branching points into the deep millions of years, with these timepoints becoming clearer as we sequence more animals.
None of it seems to show a clear drift from the middle east for all species. Though to be fair, all domestic cats do seem to originate from somewhere over there.
Dogs are less clear, the split from wolves seems to be somewhere between 100K and 15K years in the past, from somewhere in eurasia.
AFAIK there is no mammalian/reptilian/flightless bird species that occurs on all continents naturally. But biologists may correct me.

I Ratant · 2nd July 2012, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Koalas are the usual choice. They are very sedentary, sometimes moving no more than a few feet from where they were born. They have a very restricted diet...

This guy says it pretty well.

.
That, and herding the polar bears and brown bears... and their food for the trip to the Ark and back home.
And poisonous serpents. WHY?
And the brown recluse spider! Have you seen what a bite from that does?
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

temporalillusion · 2nd July 2012, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

While you're considering this, perhaps you can explain to me how it was that all the kangaroos hopped to Australia from Armenia, along with all other marsupials except the opossum (BTW, how'd they get across the straits), without leaving any skeletal remains along the way. Also, how is it that the marsupials made it to Australia, but none of the placental mammals did, until they were brought there by human beings? For example, why didn't any of the tigers follow he 'roos and wombats down under?

Biogeography is something I've never seen any creationist address directly, other than "god did it".

Along these lines you can also ask why the types of species you find on islands that were once connected to a continent are ones you would expect (such as amphibians, fresh water fish, large seed trees, etc) while the types of species you find on islands that rose out of the ocean are ones that could only get there via flying/swimming/hitchhiking (no amphibians or fresh water fish due to salt water being poisonous, no large seed trees, other species radiating to fill the niches left open by these missing species).

There's tons of neat information that makes no sense in a flood model, but are predicted in an evolution/plate tectonics/volcanoes/old earth model.

Tricky · 2nd July 2012, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

And poisonous serpents. WHY?

So I could tell this joke:

The floodwaters were receeding and all of the animals had left the ark, following Noah's command to "go forth and multiply". As Noah was checking out the ark, he saw two snakes entwined and crying their scaly eyelids off. "Why are you still here," asked Noah, "Did I not tell you to go forth and multiply?"

"But we can't," one snake sobbed, "We're adders."

I Ratant · 2nd July 2012, 03:40 PM

The Lord works in mysterious ways!
Amen!

AvalonXQ · 2nd July 2012, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

So I could tell this joke:

The floodwaters were receeding and all of the animals had left the ark, following Noah's command to "go forth and multiply". As Noah was checking out the ark, he saw two snakes entwined and crying their scaly eyelids off. "Why are you still here," asked Noah, "Did I not tell you to go forth and multiply?"

"But we can't," one snake sobbed, "We're adders."

Second half of the joke...

After thinking for a little while, Noah summons back the beavers, who quickly gnaw down a large tree.

Noah rolls the fallen trunk over to the snakes. "How is this going to help?" they ask.

Noah explains. "Adders multiply with a natural log!"

1st July 2012, 09:52 PM	#441
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,944	Why is it that only those who were taught the story of Noah see a reason to even suspect this global flood happened? Is everyone who is not a flood believer deluded by the dogmatic religion of science, is science blinded to this event because many scientists are atheists? Why is nobody else seeing anything in nature which suggests anything about the story took place? The idea that it's due to people having preconceived notions about those who subscribe to the story seems like a dodge to me.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,944

1st July 2012, 10:54 PM	#442
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Originally Posted by Halfcentaur Why is it that only those who were taught the story of Noah see a reason to even suspect this global flood happened? Is everyone who is not a flood believer deluded by the dogmatic religion of science, is science blinded to this event because many scientists are atheists? Why is nobody else seeing anything in nature which suggests anything about the story took place? The idea that it's due to people having preconceived notions about those who subscribe to the story seems like a dodge to me. Ya know that's really the worst thing about the story of Genesis. If it weren't here, there would be no suspicion to the origins of the Earth/everything else with the evidence we have and there wouldn't be this despicable attempts by the religious to force a wedge strategy in education. No other book of the Bible causes as much problems for education than Genesis, and yet it's the most obviously WRONG book of the Bible. How is this even happening? It's baffling.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

1st July 2012, 11:25 PM	#443
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,980	^ That Originally Posted by AvalonXQ ...To be honest, I suspect that most of the "participants" (if heckling and insulting is categorized as "participation") in this thread are in the same situation I am -- the difference being that they by default accept the orthodoxy rather than creationist alternative explanations, without having the deeper understanding to actually evaluate the two. Originally Posted by AdMan Then perhaps you can help explain why mythological fairy tales deserve to be considered alongside orthodox science in the first place.
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,980	__________________ To a conspiracy theorist, having double standards just means that they have twice as many standards. carlitos

2nd July 2012, 12:23 AM	#444
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by MG1962 Knowing what a star is would not impact or improve their life in any meaningful way. Understanding the need to share resources within the tribe was paramount to their survival. Communal use of resources is a cornerstone of most aboriginal culture, even there concept of ownership in general is very different to our western thinking. Knowing if there is life on Mars will not impact or improve our lives in a meaningful way. Human beings understanding the need to share all resources with each other is paramount to our collective survival. Communal sharing of resources is a wise use of intelligence. This is one main reason why we are not succeeding in our evolution. Wondering about the flood of long time gone is distraction from more immediate concerns. I think so.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες Last edited by Navigator; 2nd July 2012 at 12:25 AM.

2nd July 2012, 12:44 AM	#445
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by Lowpro Ya know that's really the worst thing about the story of Genesis. If it weren't here, there would be no suspicion to the origins of the Earth/everything else with the evidence we have and there wouldn't be this despicable attempts by the religious to force a wedge strategy in education. No other book of the Bible causes as much problems for education than Genesis, and yet it's the most obviously WRONG book of the Bible. How is this even happening? It's baffling. Ehh... I wouldn't go that far, either in saying that the Bible caused it or that there would be no suspicion, if it weren't for the Bible. The root of the problem lies elsewhere, of course.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

2nd July 2012, 01:04 AM	#446
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Originally Posted by Aridas Ehh... I wouldn't go that far, either in saying that the Bible caused it or that there would be no suspicion, if it weren't for the Bible. The root of the problem lies elsewhere, of course. I'm accusing Genesis specifically, from the origins of man to the flood etc etc. If it weren't for Genesis there wouldn't be any resources dedicated to trying to prove a fairy tale. After seeing how well science progresses WITHOUT Genesis (determining evolution, archaeology, etc) it's almost disgusting that there are fringe people who not only take it seriously but delude others by saying "Genesis is true, no matter what evidence says against it...of course if the evidence can/may support it then let science blind you" You wouldn't have the outcry of idiots angry with Evolution or cosmology (assuming this of course, who knows what else religious people may try to replace it with) if it was for once and all agreed by everyone, religious and otherwise that Genesis is complete bollocks in veracity and is just a story, not history.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

2nd July 2012, 01:19 AM	#447
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by Lowpro I'm accusing Genesis specifically, from the origins of man to the flood etc etc. If it weren't for Genesis there wouldn't be any resources dedicated to trying to prove a fairy tale. After seeing how well science progresses WITHOUT Genesis (determining evolution, archaeology, etc) it's almost disgusting that there are fringe people who not only take it seriously but delude others by saying "Genesis is true, no matter what evidence says against it...of course if the evidence can/may support it then let science blind you" You wouldn't have the outcry of idiots angry with Evolution or cosmology (assuming this of course, who knows what else religious people may try to replace it with) if it was for once and all agreed by everyone, religious and otherwise that Genesis is complete bollocks in veracity and is just a story, not history. And I'm not accusing Genesis itself of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Interestingly enough, I find a number of the stories in it interesting, for various reasons. Not particularly believable, these days, but interesting. I am accusing those who are and were blatantly more interested in supporting their desires than accurate representations of reality. To a lesser degree, I am accusing those who are educated badly enough in the relevant matters or too readily give into confirmation bias that they don't even realize that "We will ignore any and all evidence that does not support our desired conclusion" is an instant red flag for trustworthiness, no matter whether one agrees with the desired conclusion or not.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 2nd July 2012 at 01:23 AM.

2nd July 2012, 01:21 AM	#448
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	I feel like we're saying the exact same thing >.> however the fact that the story's in the wrong place at the wrong time is a bit irrelevant to me as far as how it's considered in determining its veracity. But I agree that maybe it's more the people to blame than the book but I cannot help thinking that if it weren't for the book itself we'd be better off.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

2nd July 2012, 01:28 AM	#449
Multivac Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,927	Originally Posted by Navigator Knowing if there is life on Mars will not impact or improve our lives in a meaningful way. Knowing that we are not alone in the Universe would make a huge difference to many people. It might not improve our lives, but it would certainly change many peoples perspectives, as it would drastically increase the chances of us meeting other intelligence entities. Religious zealots would want to know what god they believed in and would try to convert them. Some religious nutters would worship them as gods, and kill people in their name. Think of the theological debates as to wheter or not these newly discovered lifeforms were part of god's plan, whether they have been saved by JC or, if not, can they be saved? Personally, as a life long atheist, it would make a difference to how I perceive the Universe, even if the lifeforms discovered were very simple.

2nd July 2012, 01:50 AM	#450
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,448	Originally Posted by Navigator This is one main reason why we are not succeeding in our evolution. You misunderstand evolution.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

2nd July 2012, 02:29 AM	#451
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Originally Posted by dafydd You misunderstand evolution. I think he meant evolution in a colloqial fashion >.>
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

2nd July 2012, 03:23 AM	#452
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,318	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ A very, very good chance. Not one that's going to resolve itself in the context of this thread, however. When/if you do so, maybe you could also (re)visit the paper drkitten discussed with you in this thread from 2009?
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

2nd July 2012, 04:55 AM	#453
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,460	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I take that as a tacit admission that your "knowledge" in this area is based on your faith in experts. Yes, I'm sure it is. Some of us have some basic knowledge of science, but so what if we don't ? We know enough of how science works to know it's better than blind faith in a book written by people who simply recalled some old oral legend. Your mention of faith is quite ironic.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

2nd July 2012, 04:56 AM	#454
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,460	Originally Posted by Tricky You should trust sources because they match up with reality or are verified by a large number of other reputable sources. Yes! To ~~Obi-Wan~~ Tricky you listen. Reality ! Remember your failure with reality !
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

2nd July 2012, 05:21 AM	#455
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,174	Originally Posted by Belz... Yes, I'm sure it is. Some of us have some basic knowledge of science, but so what if we don't ? We know enough of how science works to know it's better than blind faith in a book written by people who simply recalled some old oral legend. Your mention of faith is quite ironic. Yep. It's that old dishonest Christian canard, "You believe, I believe, so I could be just as correct as you," crap. There is no geological or archaeological evidence which would support the notion that Noah's flood actually occurred. None. Nowhere within the immense body of geological and archaeological information we have. Once the conversation has gotten that far along, and the Christians can't pick and poke at some silly and irrelevant minutiae, lying to themselves and others is the only place they have left to go.

2nd July 2012, 05:57 AM	#456
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by Navigator This is one main reason why we are not succeeding in our evolution. Since evolution has no goal, it is impossible to judge whether we are "succeeding" or not. Humans define what "success" means. If it it means that we become one of the dominant species on the planet, then yes we're succeeding well. But other species have done this. Cyanobacteria were once the predominant organism on earth, but they excreted what was poison to them, and they died back considerably. (Fortunately for us, their excrement was oxygen, which paved the way for more advanced life.) If success is judged by longevity, then the Horshoe Crab or the Coelacanth have survived a long time, but in very low numbers.

2nd July 2012, 06:05 AM	#457
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,460	Originally Posted by Navigator Knowing if there is life on Mars will not impact or improve our lives in a meaningful way. Yeah, and the same can be said of building those ridiculous flying machines.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

2nd July 2012, 06:06 AM	#458
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,460	Originally Posted by GeeMack Yep. It's that old dishonest Christian canard, "You believe, I believe, so I could be just as correct as you," crap. Indeed. Equivocation until they think it's 50-50. Good odds, right ? Unfortunately, not only is it false equivocation, it's also a false dichotomy.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

2nd July 2012, 06:28 AM	#459
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,718	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I take that as a tacit admission that your "knowledge" in this area is based on your faith in experts. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ As I have questions in this subject area, Tricky is the one I'll approach. So after accusing others as lacking knowledge and having faith in experts you're going to have faith in Tricky as an expert.
	Last edited by tsig; 2nd July 2012 at 06:29 AM.

2nd July 2012, 06:53 AM	#460
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,460	Makes sense to me.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

2nd July 2012, 08:02 AM	#461
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by tsig So after accusing others as lacking knowledge and having faith in experts you're going to have faith in Tricky as an expert. No. If I have questions about orthodox geology, I'll ask Tricky those questions. That doesn't mean I'm going to "have faith in" Tricky's answers.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

2nd July 2012, 08:53 AM	#462
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I'm pretty sure the creationists label all of those archeological sites as post-Flood. . They have to, to be consistent in their denial. But the sciences (plural) all converge on dates before, and sometimes way before any Flood, with no evidence of that Flood at all from as far back as the sciences (plural) be read the evidence. Note the sciences (plural) have to come to the same conclusion when approaching the situation from many different viewpoints and purposes, or the method of arrival at a conclusion will be considered incorrect when there's a significant variation from the others in the end result. And the difference can be examined, to detect any errors in the process. That's science.

2nd July 2012, 08:59 AM	#463
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Lowpro Ya know that's really the worst thing about the story of Genesis. If it weren't here, there would be no suspicion to the origins of the Earth/everything else with the evidence we have and there wouldn't be this despicable attempts by the religious to force a wedge strategy in education. No other book of the Bible causes as much problems for education than Genesis, and yet it's the most obviously WRONG book of the Bible. How is this even happening? It's baffling. . Every culture has its creation myths. We're stuck with that one. "Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were" has many creation myths, all of them describing how any one culture sees the beginnings, from their viewpoint. Lots of gods given authority over different aspects of the world, and life.

2nd July 2012, 09:01 AM	#464
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Navigator Knowing if there is life on Mars will not impact or improve our lives in a meaningful way. Human beings understanding the need to share all resources with each other is paramount to our collective survival. Communal sharing of resources is a wise use of intelligence. This is one main reason why we are not succeeding in our evolution. Wondering about the flood of long time gone is distraction from more immediate concerns. I think so. . To the au-contriare! We are succeeding in our evolution, but not in the way it usually goes in nature. We're interfering with the natural process with our health cares, providing sustenance, and warfare beyond anything nature unassisted would be doing.

2nd July 2012, 09:03 AM	#465
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Lowpro I'm accusing Genesis specifically, from the origins of man to the flood etc etc. If it weren't for Genesis there wouldn't be any resources dedicated to trying to prove a fairy tale. After seeing how well science progresses WITHOUT Genesis (determining evolution, archaeology, etc) it's almost disgusting that there are fringe people who not only take it seriously but delude others by saying "Genesis is true, no matter what evidence says against it...of course if the evidence can/may support it then let science blind you" You wouldn't have the outcry of idiots angry with Evolution or cosmology (assuming this of course, who knows what else religious people may try to replace it with) if it was for once and all agreed by everyone, religious and otherwise that Genesis is complete bollocks in veracity and is just a story, not history. . Genesis comes from Gilgamesh. And that's a better ripping good yarn.

2nd July 2012, 09:03 AM	#466
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by I Ratant . Every culture has its creation myths. We're stuck with that one. "Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were" has many creation myths, all of them describing how any one culture sees the beginnings, from their viewpoint. Lots of gods given authority over different aspects of the world, and life. I loved that book when I was a kid.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

2nd July 2012, 09:06 AM	#467
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Lowpro I feel like we're saying the exact same thing >.> however the fact that the story's in the wrong place at the wrong time is a bit irrelevant to me as far as how it's considered in determining its veracity. But I agree that maybe it's more the people to blame than the book but I cannot help thinking that if it weren't for the book itself we'd be better off. . We'd have some other tale of things supernatural that would be upheld as THE TRUTH! Every culture has those. Are we any worse? It's the northern Europeans with Genesis in their book of "truth" that conquered every other culture in the world, after all.

2nd July 2012, 09:08 AM	#468
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Belz... Yeah, and the same can be said of building those ridiculous flying machines. . Knowing there was life on Mars, the first question that would be asked is "Have they been saved?" And that would provide the impetus to get there. Share the misery, as it were.

2nd July 2012, 09:38 AM	#469
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,109	Originally Posted by dafydd Do we all agree that there is no geological or archaeological evidence for the Flood? Of course. The idea of the biblical flood being a real event is just silly.

2nd July 2012, 11:13 AM	#470
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,125	Here's something that could be used as a pass / fail test of the historicity of the Flood: If the ark came to rest on the slopes of Mt. Ararat in what is now eastern Turkey, bot was originally part of Armenia - or, to adhere more closely to the text, "on the mountains of Ararat - then all species of land animal should show signs of genetic drift, etc. pointing back to Armenia as their point of origin. So, AvalonXQ, would you accept this as a pass/ fail test of the scientific validity of the flood? While you're considering this, perhaps you can explain to me how it was that all the kangaroos hopped to Australia from Armenia, along with all other marsupials except the opossum (BTW, how'd they get across the straits), without leaving any skeletal remains along the way. Also, how is it that the marsupials made it to Australia, but none of the placental mammals did, until they were brought there by human beings? For example, why didn't any of the tigers follow he 'roos and wombats down under?
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,125

2nd July 2012, 11:20 AM	#471
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by TimCallahan Here's something that could be used as a pass / fail test of the historicity of the Flood: If the ark came to rest on the slopes of Mt. Ararat in what is now eastern Turkey, bot was originally part of Armenia - or, to adhere more closely to the text, "on the mountains of Ararat - then all species of land animal should show signs of genetic drift, etc. pointing back to Armenia as their point of origin. So, AvalonXQ, would you accept this as a pass/ fail test of the scientific validity of the flood? That seems reasonable to me, yes.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

2nd July 2012, 11:26 AM	#472
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,168	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ That seems reasonable to me, yes. I hope you get around to the second part of Tim's post. I've always wondered about how YECs explain this myself: Originally Posted by TimCallahan While you're considering this, perhaps you can explain to me how it was that all the kangaroos hopped to Australia from Armenia, along with all other marsupials except the opossum (BTW, how'd they get across the straits), without leaving any skeletal remains along the way. Also, how is it that the marsupials made it to Australia, but none of the placental mammals did, until they were brought there by human beings? For example, why didn't any of the tigers follow he 'roos and wombats down under?
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,168	__________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

2nd July 2012, 11:39 AM	#473
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,125	Originally Posted by TimCallahan Here's something that could be used as a pass / fail test of the historicity of the Flood: If the ark came to rest on the slopes of Mt. Ararat in what is now eastern Turkey, bot was originally part of Armenia - or, to adhere more closely to the text, "on the mountains of Ararat - then all species of land animal should show signs of genetic drift, etc. pointing back to Armenia as their point of origin. Since AvalonXQ has accepted this as a valid pass / fail test for the historic / scientific validity of the Flood, does anyone know of a specific species we can use as test animals? We might also use plant species, such as wildflowers.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,125

2nd July 2012, 02:34 PM	#474
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by TimCallahan Since AvalonXQ has accepted this as a valid pass / fail test for the historic / scientific validity of the Flood, does anyone know of a specific species we can use as test animals? We might also use plant species, such as wildflowers. Koalas are the usual choice. They are very sedentary, sometimes moving no more than a few feet from where they were born. They have a very restricted diet... This guy says it pretty well. Originally Posted by Michael Archer, Dean of the Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales God declared that all except two of every living thing would be drowned by zillions of tonnes of floodwater from somewhere. The lucky two of everything, including two of all their parasites and disease organisms, were shoe-horned into the Ark to bob about on the floodwaters for a year. Presumably on the passenger list were at least two very prolific gum trees to provide the half tonne of leaves a healthy pair of Koalas would need to survive. At the end of the cruise, the floodwaters, which had been deep enough to cover Mount Everest, went away to somewhere and the Ark settled on top of Mount Ararat in Turkey. (As support for the truth of this legend, 'Arkeologist' historian Allen Roberts claims to have identified the remains of the Ark on the slopes of Mount Ararat—in the form of what geologist Ian Plimer has shown to be a very large pile of dried mud.) After the Ark landed, everything from dinosaurs to Dodos disembarked onto the flood-devastated Earth and slipped, flopped, flapped or swam unerringly to appropriate parts of the globe, leaving no trace of their passage along the way. The two Koalas with their prolific gum trees then crossed the barren lands and oceans (all 'flesh' not in the Ark had been destroyed by the flood) to re-establish in Australia where they have lived happily ever after.

2nd July 2012, 02:39 PM	#475
Lukraak_Sisser Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,619	Originally Posted by TimCallahan Since AvalonXQ has accepted this as a valid pass / fail test for the historic / scientific validity of the Flood, does anyone know of a specific species we can use as test animals? We might also use plant species, such as wildflowers. None really. Prior to extensive human shipping all larger lifeforms were pretty much confined to their respective continents. Mitochondrial DNA testing is the commonly used technique as that DNA is quite stable and has to be transferred maternally. This shows branching points into the deep millions of years, with these timepoints becoming clearer as we sequence more animals. None of it seems to show a clear drift from the middle east for all species. Though to be fair, all domestic cats do seem to originate from somewhere over there. Dogs are less clear, the split from wolves seems to be somewhere between 100K and 15K years in the past, from somewhere in eurasia. AFAIK there is no mammalian/reptilian/flightless bird species that occurs on all continents naturally. But biologists may correct me.