Opinion by Joel Baden, Special to CNN
(CNN) – That faint humming sound you’ve heard recently is the scholarly world of the Bible and archaeology abuzz over the discovery of the oldest known Mesopotamian version of the famous Flood story.
A British scholar has found that a 4,000-year-old cuneiform tablet from what is now Iraq contains a story similar to the biblical account of Noah’s Ark.
The newly decoded cuneiform tells of a divinely sent flood and a sole survivor on an ark, who takes all the animals on board to preserve them. It even includes the famous phrase “two by two,” describing how the animals came onto the ark.
But there is one apparently major difference: The ark in this version is round.
We have known for well over a century that there are flood stories from the ancient Near East that long predate the biblical account (even the most conservative biblical scholars wouldn’t date any earlier than the ninth century B.C).
What’s really intriguing scholars is the description of the ark itself.
The Bible presents a standard boat shape – long and narrow. The length being six times the measure of the width, with three decks and an entrance on the side.
The newly discovered Mesopotamian text describes a large round vessel, made of woven rope, and coated (like the biblical ark) in pitch to keep it waterproof.
Archaeologists are planning to design a prototype of the ark, built to the specifications of this text, to see if it would actually float. Good luck to them in trying to estimate the weight of its cargo.
So, why does this new discovery matter? It matters because it serves as a reminder that the story of the Flood wasn’t set in stone from its earliest version all the way through to its latest incarnation.
The people who wrote down the Flood narrative, in any of its manifestations, weren’t reporting on a historical event for which they had to get their facts straight (like what shape the ark was).
Everyone reshapes the Flood story, and the ark itself, according to the norms of their own time and place.
In ancient Mesopotamia, a round vessel would have been perfectly reasonable – in fact, we know that this type of boat was in use, though perhaps not to such a gigantic scale, on the Mesopotamian rivers.
The ancient Israelites, on the other hand, would naturally have pictured a boat like those they were familiar with: which is to say, the boats that navigated not the rivers of Mesopotamia but the Mediterranean Sea.
This detail of engineering can and should stand for a larger array of themes and features in the flood stories. The Mesopotamian versions feature many gods; the biblical account, of course, only one.
The Mesopotamian versions tell us that the Flood came because humans were too noisy for the gods; the biblical account says it was because violence had spread over the Earth.
Neither version is right or wrong; they are, rather, both appropriate to the culture that produced them. Neither is history; both are theology.
What, then, of the most striking parallel between this newly discovered text and Genesis: the phrase “two by two”? Here, it would seem, we have an identical conception of the animals entering the ark. But not so fast.
Although most people, steeped in Sunday school tradition, will tell you without even thinking about it that “the animals, they came on, they came on by twosies twosies,” that’s not exactly what the Bible says.
More accurately, it’s one thing that the Bible says – but a few verses later, Noah is instructed to bring not one pair of each species, but seven pairs of all the “clean” animals and the birds, and one pair of the “unclean” animals.
(This is important because at the end of the story, Noah offers sacrifices – which, if he only brought one pair of each animal, would mean that, after saving them all from the Flood, he then proceeded to relegate some of those species to extinction immediately thereafter.)
This isn’t news – already in the 17th century scholars recognized that there must be two versions of the Flood intertwined in the canonical Bible.
There are plenty of significant differences between the two Flood stories in the Bible, which are easily spotted if you try to read the narrative as it stands.
One version says the Flood lasted 40 days; the other says 150. One says the waters came from rain. Another says it came from the opening of primordial floodgates both above and below the Earth. One version says Noah sent out a dove, three times. The other says he sent out a raven, once.
And yes: In one of those stories, the animals come on “two by two.”
Does this mean that the author of that version was following the ancient Mesopotamian account that was just discovered? Certainly not.
If the goal of the ark is the preservation of the animals, then having a male and female of each is just common sense. And, of course, it’s a quite reasonable space-saving measure.
Likewise, the relative age of the Mesopotamian and biblical accounts tells us nothing about their relative authority.
Even if we acknowledge, as we probably should, that the biblical authors learned the Flood story from their neighbors – after all, flooding isn’t, and never was, really a pressing concern in Israel – this doesn’t make the Bible any less authoritative.
The Bible gets its authority from us, who treat it as such, not from it being either the first or the most reliable witness to history.
There is no doubt that the discovery of this new ancient Mesopotamian text is important. But from a biblical perspective, its importance resides mostly in the way it serves to remind us that the Flood story is a malleable one.
There are multiple different Mesopotamian versions, and there are multiple different biblical versions. They share a basic outline, and some central themes. But they each relate the story in their own way.
The power of the Flood story, for us the canonical biblical version, is in what it tells us about humanity’s relationship with God. But, as always, the devil is in the details.
Joel S. Baden is the author of "The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero" and an associate professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. The views expressed in this column belong to Baden.
I don't believe Dorian Mattar is even real no I do not believe there ever was a Dorian Mattar. All fake. Funny thing man came from monkeys but there is still monkeys.
He's all over the place.
Yes, isn't that amazing? The POWER of the WWW. I wonder why Jesus doesn't use it... Hum... Oh yeah, he works in mysterious ways! LMAO
Elle should also take two seconds to learn that it is apes, not monkeys, that are our common ancestor. Gee. The net is HARD.
Yes, Chimps to be precise. How difficult is it to do a search for evidence, evolution and biologists?
Some people never learn... and I thought the newer generation knew how to use a computer!
Yep, do the research 96% of our DNA is chimp yet only 50% of our DNA is shared with the banana. Evolution has confirmed the fruit does not fall far from the tree. Science and religion keep walking around that tree God put right in the middle of the garden. That tree of knowledge was a banana tree and it had a peel that caught Eve's desire. Even Darwin had man on a branch of the tree.
Did you come up with all that by yourself? Man, you are one smart cookie!
But hey, did you even wonder why there are still europeans? Shouldn't there be just Americans and no europeans according to your little hypothesis? There are still monkeys, because NOT ALL OF THEM move from Africa, just like NOT all europeans moved from Europe!
Is that so difficult to understand?
And so strange, I responded back to you right away, and yet your jesus only speaks to you in your head.
Do you think we can get a transcript from your conversations? Cause I'm sure this conversation is being saved to a massive server farm and can be viewed by thousands of people simultaneously, you know, just like with your jesus.
Nobody is saying that there hasn't been floods in the world, just not a GLOBAL flood that reached to the top of the tallest mountain and killed every human and animal except those in some stupid boat.
I would like to point out a misunderstanding between the supposed two different versions of Noah's Ark within the Bible. The pairs of animals were to be kept alive for reproduction, the 7 pairs were likely for either food or sacrifices. Also the 40 days and 150 days do not mean the same thing. The earth was flooded for 150 days, meaning that's how long the water was on the earth before dry ground appeared again. the 40 days was how long the rain came down. The raven and the dove aren't contradictions either. Noah sent out both the first time and only the dove the next two times. These aren't two stories.
You are making assumptions! Nowhere in the bible does it state that the other 7 are for food and sacrifices. and why would a god require sacrifices? LMAO!!!
The flood is an exaggerated fairy tale.
A British scholar has found that a 4,000-year-old cuneiform tablet from what is now Iraq contains a story similar to the biblical account of Noah’s Ark......
Just goes to show you that the bible is just a bunch of fairy tales that have been handed down through the ages...I mean come on bible people even the name Jesus is not a name used in the middle east....and if you're honest when you read John, Mark ,Mathieu and Luke you have to notice they all have different stories...that happens when there is no evidence of any of it ever happening.....I'm sure the stories attributed to Homer were far different from what was finally past down in writing.
Great MIRACLES have been discovered in the Book of TORAH, GENESIS, DEUTERONOMY, and in the PSALMS.
It will change the World forever!
BIBLICAL EXCELLENT MIRACLES 1 – 2
Let me get that straight, god loved the world so much that instead of forgiving us and taking us out of 40+ hours of work per week, 25,000 children starving per day, earthquakes, tsunamis, asteroids, hemorrhoids LMAO!!! (It just rhymed so well) etc. etc. etc…
...he sends his son to be tortured and accomplishes what? Forgiveness? Last I checked all I have to do to forgive is say "I forgive you", definitely NOT send my son to be nailed! That would be counter productive and simply STUPID.
Then the world went on the same way as it had ever been. People suffer the same, people starve the same, people get sick the same, people die the same.
Your god accomplished nothing, therefore he is USELESS. But we knew that already.
They found Noah's Ark again? How many times is it now? Always in a different place too.
Hey, hawaiiguest, long time!
I was bored today. Figured I'd come and see what's going on. Not a whole lot of familiar faces anymore.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” – John 3:16-21, NKJV
For God so loved the world that He killed everything on it that couldn't fit on a 400 foot floating zoo.
yes scot, so the STORY goes.
There continues to be absolutley no evidence anywhere that the STORY is true.
There continues to be a great deal of evidence that the story was made up from previous cultures stories, and that men make up gods in answer to his own ignorance.
Young Earth Creationists use science in the same way that Deepak Chopra uses quantum mechanics.
It is what Trekkies call "techno-babble" – full of sound and obfuscating fury, but signifying nothing.
I don't have the patience, but you deserve a free dinner or something, Doc for putting up for so long with that wandering buffoon's idiotic delusions.
vast parts of the bible are copied fro the stories of earlier civilizations and touted as the original word of the Christian god. What a fraud. Even the jesus character himself and his many exploits are so similar in so many details to any number of pre-dating deities from earlier civilizations that it is obvious that it has been copied.
Fraud. Fraud. Fraud! Christians, you are either gullible sheep or you are frauds. I'm not sure which is worse.
Wake up! Get out of your stories! Stop reading Christian propaganda! Join us in the real world! It really is a very cool place.
In a recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Mr Ham referenced Andrew Snelling a few times. Snelling has worked for the same organization that Mr Ham worked for (the Institute for Creation Research) touting the young-earth view. People should know that while working for that organization, Dr Snelling, who received his credentials as a geologist dating rocks at billions of years old, also sold his consulting services to organizations such as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.
One article about this dichotomous behavior from Dr Snelling has asked "Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?"
Dr Alex Ritchie wrote in his article Flood geology: a house built on sand:
"If any geologist were to be caught salting a deposit, falsifying results or engaging in other forms of behaviour likely to bring his/her discipline into disrepute, they would be promptly dealt with by their peers.
In my opinion it is equally abhorrent for anyone claiming to be a professional geoscientist to indulge in deliberately misleading and deceptive conduct aimed directly at lay audiences and especially at young people."
Evidently, for the right price, Dr Snelling will tell the young-earth creationists what they want to hear (and even try to make some extra dough selling such quackery to their gullible followers as well).
Doris I would say there are a few on this forum eh .
The Crazy Way Creationists Try To Explain Human Tails Without Evolution
Human tails are a genetic accident—and a big problem for the faux-scientific creationism known as ‘intelligent design.’ But that won’t stop their wild tales.
has the gene from our 'ancestors' 4 million years ago suddenly appeared? i do believe the missing link has been found! someone quick get Richard Dawkins on the phone so we can confirm.
If you're seriously presenting this video as some kind of evidence, you are either sadly misinformed or deliberately dishonest.
Or, very likely, both.
why don't you try watching it. i think a comment from Richard Dawkins would be entirely appropriate. i would like to ask him how this fits into his absurd theories of biological evolution..
" why don't you try watching it."
This from the poster who consistently says " I dont care what your opinion is" when confronted with ideas that disagree with his. Why the double standard ?
DumbAzzScott is too stupid to research things before he posts them. . .
if you are not a biologist, how tdo you pretend to know more than not just Dawkins, but 99.95% of all biologist on the planet?
Don't you think that is simply absurd? If the theory sounds unlikely to you, remember what people like you used to think about the earth spinning on it's axis and around the sun.
Some people still don't believe it. Are you one of those people?
EVOLUTION is beginning to crumble
"EVOLUTION is beginning to crumble"
No, it isn't. If you understood how the evolutionary process works, you would see that this family is a case that PROVES the process.
Seriously, get an education.
oh scotty ... go and peddle your Christian propaganda somewhere else.
Evolution is not a "theory in crisis".
Those who try to preach that it is fear evolution's association with atheistic naturalism.
Thye lose sleep over the idea that if people learn facts, it will drive them away from their religion.
In order to keep from getting burned at the stake (metaphorically, of course), evolutionary scientists are strongly motivated to ameliorate conflict between evolution and religion. Sociobiology offers them an apparent conciliatory path to the compatibility of religion and evolution, avoiding all language of inescapable conflict. Sociobiological evolution is the means to understand religion, whereas religion as a 'way of knowing' has nothing to teach us about evolution.
The great majority of scientists (esp. biologists) see no conflict between religion and evolution, not because they occupy different, noncompeting magisteria, but because they see religion as a natural product of human evolution. Sociologists and cultural anthropologists, in contrast, tend toward the hypothesis that cultural change alone produced religions, minus evolutionary change in humans. The overwhelming majority of scientists reject the basic tenets of religion, such as gods, life after death, incorporeal spirits or the supernatural. Yet they still hold a compatible view of religion and science.
Src: (Greg Graffin and Will Provine, "American Scientist 95:294-297, 2007.)
Maybe it's just as well that he spends lots of time here, where he can be contested and rebutted by rational people - rather than somewhere else where he might beguile and bamboozle hapless, gullible people with his arrogant sermonizing and pontificating.
The Chinese discoveries confirmed what had already been found at the Burgess Shale in British Columbia. No plausible ancestors have yet been found in lower strata, either in Canada or China. Some of the Cambrian creatures are highly complex. Among the earliest are well-preserved trilobites, with lens-focusing eyes and a 360-degree field of vision. “Not so primitive,” as Meyer writes. – Stephen Meyer, PHD Cambridge University
In all animals we find intricately folded proteins made of hundreds of precisely arranged sequences of amino acids. Meyer cites the work of molecular biologist Douglas Axe who has shown that generating even just one new protein by mutating DNA at random has a prohibitively small chance of ever occurring even on the scale of evolutionary deep time. The number of amino acid combinations that mutations much search vastly exceeds the time that is available to evolutionary history, let alone the brief period of the Cambrian explosion.
Yep, still only a theory, but more and more sounding like a very bad and contrived theory.
The only reason you are posting this garbage, is because you are not educated on the subject and you HAVE to believe this or your religion crumbles.
You haven't looked up all the claims on the book, so how the hell would you know what claim is real and which one is not?
You are blissfully ignorant.
Scotty keeps quoting from "Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen Meyer. Stephen Meyer has a PhD in the Philosophy of Science, and he helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.
Scotty posted a link to a positive review of the book (written by a journalist known for his support of "fringe-science")
Here is a link to a review by Nick Matzke, who is a PhD in Evolutionary Biology. As you might guess, the doctor can spot the glaring mistakes made by Meyer much better than the journalist can.
awanderingscot has wandered all over the fields of conjecture, half-truth, outright lies and fairy tales but has yet to make a trip into the land of logic, reason and science as these are far too difficult for him to navigate with a brain the size of a tardigrade.
Hey, hey, Tardigrades are WAY to smart and strong for this guy, more like an ameba.
LOL, you're in denial like the critic who was found to not even have read the book.
Who needs to read Peter Pan to know it's not real?
Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species claimed that organisms arose by random variation and natural selection, which must have been a slow business. But the fossil record shows that the major animal forms appeared without visible predecessors — an event known as the Cambrian Explosion. As the Darwinian rulebook regards such sudden changes as highly improbable, the evolutionists encounter two problems: insufficient time and missing fossils.
The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago. More recent discoveries in China showed that the new phyla — for example arthropods, chordates, and brachiopods — appeared within a ten-million-year period. Others say the “explosive” period took only 5 to 6 million years. Compared with the reported three-billion year history of life on earth, the Cambrian explosion is the equivalent of just a few minutes in a 24-hour day. It happened in a geological blink.
You are not a biologist. You are a wannabe and nothing more.
Furthermore, evolutionists (who are after all materialists) have stated and hold as fact that matter has been here for all eternity. Without this basis of fact, evolution is dead. It is in fact dead because matter has NOT existed for all eternity and the Big Bang proves it. Nearly all scientists have concluded the universe was created out of nothingness. The claim that matter organized itself and created life is a fallacy. Evolution is disproved by science.
You are not even remotely capable of understanding physics.
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed and the net matter/energy of the universe is ZERO.
Due to quantum uncertainty energy fluctuations such as electron and its anti-particle a positron can arise spontaneously out of vacuum space but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat.[not in citation given] In that case the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.
You are way out of your league.
ignorance of this scale is very embarrassing for you Scotty.
You don't understand the big bang (reading too much Christian propaganda)
You don't understand evolution (reading too much Christian propaganda)
this is not what science says AT ALL!
real scientific facts disprove evolution theory. the notion that matter spontaneously and intelligently arranged itself is illogical and has no basis in scientific fact.
You are correct wnaderinsct, in that was pure crap.
You also need to know that is not what evolution says happened.
"matter has NOT existed for all eternity and the Big Bang proves it."
Apparently this scot doesn't understand E=MC2 or is one of those who reads conservapedia which thinks E=MC2 is only accepted because of political pressure, as it says "Political pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation. Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap." conservapedia.com
Well, i've had my good laugh for the day. Sorry it was at your expense scot.
A gorilla can lift something 2,000kg (as heavy as 30 humans), over 10 times their body weight
A tiger can carry something 550kg, twice its own body weight ten feet up a tree.
When it comes to pure strength the Grizzly bear can lift over 500kg, 0.8 times its body weight.
African elephants can weigh up to 6,350kg and they can carry up to 9,000kg, the weight of 130 adult humans.
An eagle is the strongest bird, able to lift something four times its own body weight during flight.
The chimpanzee, supposedly our closest relative dwarfs man in strength
Tiny leafcutter ants can lift and carry in their jaws something 50 times their own body weight of about 500mg.
Rhinoceros Beetles can lift something 850 times their own weight. To put this into perspective, if a human had the strength of the rhinoceros beetle, it would be able to lift a 65 ton object. If the mighty elephant had equal strength to the rhinoceros beetle it would be able to carry 850 elephants on its back.
A dung beetle is not only the world’s strongest insect but also the strongest animal on the planet compared to body weight. They can pull 1,141 times their own body weight. This is the equivalent of an average person pulling six double-decker buses full of people. Now that’s strong!
This theory of evolution places man with all of the other animals in the animal kingdom. According to them he is JUST an animal like all the others. But in terms of survival of the fittest this is preposterous. Man is by far one of the weakest 'animals' around.
Once one gets past the smugness of atheism and evolution. Once one scratches the surface just a bit, the façade crumbles rapidly.
Again a completely ignorant person trying to present an argument as if he knows what he is talking about.
Go study biology, then come back with real arguments. Better yet, publish your arguments to a scientific journal, so that we can all have a laugh.
Our primary evolutionary advantage is that we are tool makers.
Thumbs + oversized brains + working together.
As individuals, we are prey animals – soft, squidgy, slow and bereft of in-built offensive capabilities. As a cooperative group, we have become the dominant species in nearly every eco-system on Earth.
People are inherently selfish. We instinctively do that which is least painful. Children do that which is least painful to themselves. Maturity comes when we are able to put aside our own immediate comfort and do that which is least painful for the group. Were it not for our ability to reason this out and cooperate, our species would not survive.
But it takes a mighty big stick to beat the selfishness out of us! Historically, it has been a God sized stick capable to inflicting unimaginable devastation in this life and the hereafter.
Religion binds communities by giving a common frame of reference.
Shared fears (like divine retribution), hopes (like going to heaven) and rituals allow the instinct for self preservation to extend beyond one's self and immediate family.
Effective cooperation is a learned skill and the successful religions recognize this. Christianity reveals this truth about ourselves most poignantly in the character of Jesus Christ. His message is one of peace, charity, modesty and forgiveness – the traits most important to develop when living in a society.
Very good comment, but it's probably over their "Cabezas".
Once one gets past the arrogance and condescension of the modern evangelical Christian, the facade crumbles easily.
There ya go. Fixed that for ya.
Oh my – well it's pretty easy to see why the wandering one would forget the brain factor. lol.
" Man is by far one of the weakest 'animals' around."
It is our intelligence and ability to adapt that make us formidable. We are not weak, though given much of what you have posted, it is unlikely that YOUR intelligence is much of a threat to anything except the truth, but you clearly reject truth for belief.
Did you know there is a correlation that shows the less intelligent a person is, the higher likelyhood that they will be religious.
I would explain that to you but I know you won't comprehend it.
i would agree that man is a toolmaker; however, so are the animals, take for example monkeys and apes. We've all seen the footage of the monkey/ape using a stick to pull ants out of a hole. Birds make nests and while some might argue this is not a case for toolmaking, it does demonstrate the ability of animals to gather and use materials around them in an intelligent way.
Can it just possibly be that we took that a few steps further because we come from them? Hum.....
A monkey using a stick to poke things isn't the same as humans fashioning complex tools for specific purposes.
Chimps don't use or create swiss army knives.
A bird's nest is not built by teams of birds working together from a design they reasoned out.
how do you know chimps 4 thousand years ago didn't make or use swiss army knives? what is your proof?
"Planet of the Apes" isn't a docu.mentary.
the problem evolution1sts have is that where they say ho.mo sapiens branched off (the specific phyla/genus) it is not apparent that the brain was over sized, that organization existed beyond the family unit, and the fact that metallurgy was non-existent. it's highly doubtful rocks and sticks could have overcome a pack of hyenas or lions. ho.mo sapiens would have been virtually defenseless and would have become extinct (according to the theory of evolut1on)
That would by why the number of early ho/mo sapiens was but a tiny fraction of what our population grew into after the development of civilization and complex tool building.
A 1.8-million-year-old skull was recently unearthed in Dmanisi, Georgia.
"Unlike other Ho.mo fossils, this skull, known as Skull 5, combines a small braincase with a long face and large teeth. It was discovered alongside the remains of four other early human ancestors, a variety of animal fossils and some stone tools—all of them associated with the same location and time period—which makes the find truly unique."
the laws of probability rule out the supposition that they could have ever made it to 'complex toolmaking' let alone civilization. it's wishful thinking.
What laws of probability? How would you go about calculating the probability of a species survival ?
That's like saying that because guinea pigs are such easy prey, the laws of probability eliminates the possibility of the species survival.
And this coming from someone who believes that the 7 billion people alive today all come from 3 breeding pairs of humans, 4000 years ago ?
What do you think the probability is of a species avoiding extinction due to genetic drift and the founder effect when its population is reduced to 3 breeding pairs wherein all of the males are first order relatives?
I know you reject evolution, but do you also reject basic Mendelian genetics?
the article starts out with a "what if" which is typical of evolut1onist propaganda but it also approximates the age to be 1.8 Ma and has already established a genus of 'Dmanisi'. This is typical. Irrespective of this however is the size of the braincase which should dispel the myth that an over sized brain existed and was extant to survivability.
"The braincase of Skull 5 is only about 33.3 cubic inches (546 cubic centimeters), however, which suggests that this early Ho.mo had a small brain despite his modern human-like limb proportions and body size.":
it's already been proven that giraffes necks did not ev.olve to the dimensions they are now because an ancestor was stretching to get leaves off a tree. even evolutions are not proposing this anymore. certain traits however can and are passed on, but this is not evolution. a monk experimenting with peas is not proof of evolut1on sir.
The M.O. of the creationist – when one misconception (outright deception?) is successfully challenged, move on yo another as quickly as possible without acknowledging the successful refutation of misconception number 1. Repeat as often as necessary.
What do giraffes' neck have to do with anything?
You deflect whenever you're backed into a corner.
Please answer the following without going off on a tangeant about Hitler or giraffes.
1) How was there fresh water immediately after a global flood?
2) How did life on earth avoid the effects of a population bottleneck, like genetic drift and the founder effect, after having the gene pool reduced to that which could fit on a 400 foot floating zoo? Especially human beings whose gene pool was reduced to 3 breeding pairs wherein all the males were first order relatives?
the wanderer: "it's already been proven that giraffes necks did not ev.olve to the dimensions they are now because..."
It's really quite obvious, Doc, that before the flood, giraffes were simply another kind of horse; but sadly they were the last kind to board the ark, and Noah only had room for them way down on the bottom level. He prayed to God that He would extend their necks so they could easily get fresh air. The rest is history I guess..... (eyeroll)
who's deflecting? you asked me if i believed in Mendelian genetics and when i answered you accuse me of deflecting? you posted a link about a supposed ancestor of ours and when i gave an answer you go on to something else. at least be honest in your arguments.
Concerning the flood, it's not too hard to figure out.
1) rain, nothing mysterious about this.
2) what is mysterious about 3 breeding pairs producing a population? man breeds animals from only one breeding pair so why is it not logical that 3 breeding pairs could not produce a thriving population? this is really not a good argument for you.
furthermore, you should know the subject better than you do. are you telling me you don't know the name of the evolut1on1st who proposed the neck-stretching theory or at least know about it? are you really an evolut1on1st or just another g0d hater?
"1) rain, nothing mysterious about this.
No nothing beyond the fact that it would require 5 times the water on the planet to raise the water level to the hieght specified, and the fact that the water salinity level would kill all the sea animals and plants, stop the oceans coveyer belt and would change the atmpshere to the point where no human could survive it. And the fact that if somehow 5 times the water on the planet could recede somewhere, it would take a huge amount of time for the oceans to recover from it, so would not be a source of the food chains for a huge amount of time, and there would be NO plants alive (all dead, land and sea plants)
Also, that sort of cataclysm would leave evidence of the occurance, that would be easily seen all around the world at the same time, yet there is no evidence of it whatsoever, and actually quite a bit of evidence showing that it never happened ( at least not on this planet). Also the water level would need to rise at 6 inches per minute all around the globe, at the same time for 40 days and nights...
Other than that, the rain isn't an issue.
That is just ONE of the many things that prove the whole story is a myth.
"But in terms of survival of the fittest this is preposterous. Man is by far one of the weakest 'animals' around."
Sooo... you don't know what survival of the fittest actually means? It has nothng to do with physical "strength" (though that can certainly be a component). It has to do with being best adapted (the best fit) to the environment a species finds itself in.
Jean Baptiste Lamarck was the name of the guy with the giraffe theory, and he was LONG before Darwin, posed some theories that some proved wrong, some inaccurate, and some accurate. You are trying to discredit evolution by looking at some of the EARLIEST scientists? Rather than looking at the current, proven information we are working from now?
That is about as dishonest as it gets...sort of like looking at Marths Stewarts mother and discrediting Marths Stewart, who has far more technology and nutritional information than her mother, but you try to claim her mother was wrong, so Martha is wrong. Seriously, do you understand how science and the scientific communicty works...of course you don't silly question..
Try updating yourself into this century scot. You are WAY behind.
"the hieght specified" since you state these things as fact:
1) what was the height of the mountains specified?
2) what amount of water would have been necessary to cover the mountains as they existed then?
3) what proof do you have that a flood would have completely wipe out all plant life and aquatic life? floods today don't wipe out all life in the water so why would it then? aquatic life thrives in brackish water.
you offer a non-factual argument. you are not a scientist.
"sort of like looking at Marths Stewarts mother and discrediting Marths Stewart"
Exactly – I doubt Martha Stewart's mother is anything like Martha. And somewhat of a mystery – Bill Murray asks right after Stewart appeared on Letterman – "Hey – what is the deal with Martha Stewart? I mean she's still single. I mean she's cute – she's an ex-con, she can make a deviled egg...."
Actually, I am a scientist, and your questions show you are not. I could attempt to explain it to you, proving once and for all that the myth of Noah never happened on the earth, but you have proven you will not accept fact since it goes against your belief. You have willfully chosen baseless belief for reality, Since that is what you want, nothing I say will ever sink through the mud of religious belief.
There are none so blind as those who believe the bible. It does not allow them to see the light of knowledge, only the darkness of baseless superst!tious religous nonsense.
The fact is that geology, oceanography, oceanology, physics, meteorology, biology, ichthyology, goelogy are but some of the many sciences that combined prove beyond any reasonable doubt ( and since you are unreasonable scot, that does not include you) that the myth of nNoah never happened. It is ridiculous.
And the hieght is specified in the book of Genesis...15 cubits above the higest mountian, which would be everest...and even though it has lowered slightly since that time, still reaches 29,029 feet.
I knwo the creationist delusion will say the world was flatter then( a baseless assertion simply meant to be among the smoke and mirrors needed for the weak attempt to discredit actual knowledge.), but we know it was much the same as it is now, just slightly lower now.
And though there are some plants hat can live in brackish water, 99% of the plants and animals that live in water, could not survive for that amount of time. A salt water dolphin can swim in fresh water, but within days it will start to die, cannot take it for very long...same with the other animals.
I couls site volumes of information, but you would not take the time to read it, and likely reject the solid data for your personal delusion.
The height would be Everest if the bible is to be believed. Most floods are short duration – days maybe weeks. Most aquatic life is adapted for either freshwater or saltwater and wouldn't survive in the mixed environment caused by all water being one body.
If all the salt water on the planet mixed with all the fresh water on the planet, all the water would be salinated.
Fresh water creatures cannot live in salt water and vice versa. The land being inundated with salt water would ensure that no plants could grow.
How did all the bodies of fresh water in the world suddenly de-salinate themselves to the point where the water was potable?
And again – a breeding pool consisting of 6 individuals, 3 of whom are 1st order relatives, would not allow for enough genetic variability to avoid the pitfalls of inbreeding, the founder effect, genetic drift etc.
PLUS, based on improved dietary habits, I'm sure Martha Steward uses less salt than her mother.
"i am a scientist" LOL really? then history and science can teach you nothing. if you really believe the highest mountain on earth was anywhere near 29k at the time (4480+yrs ago) then you are a sad case for a scientist or delusional, maybe both. the Himalayas are the youngest mountains on earth and they've only recently attained the height they are today.
So you're saying that the mountains had to be lower, as there is not enough water on earth to cover Mount Everest. However, this means after the flood there were monumental land transformations, with mountains being pushed up out of the floodwaters. Mountains usually grow at a rate of millimetres per year, and even then the result of such movement can be earthquakes. For mountains to have grown thousands of metres over a rapid period, the resultant earthquake activity would have made the earth uninhabitable, in a state of constant, violent movement by earthquake and volcanic activity.
since you really don't know the proportion of salt water to fresh water on earth you cannot authoritatively make the statement that if mixed it would qualify as salt water and not brackish. you are not a scientist either because like IGAFRT your statements are not based on fact, only supposition.
The Great Pyramid of Giza was completed in 2,500 BCE, centuries before the Bibilical flood.
Why doesn't it show any signs of water damage?
There is 40 times as much salt water as fresh water on the planet.
Ice core samples have provided us with solid data regarding conditions in the past (including salinity levels).
An ice core provides a vertical timeline of past climates stored in ice sheets and mountain glaciers.
The very simplest form of dating revolves around the consistency of the ice.
Throughout each year, layers of snow fall over the ice sheets.
Each layer of snow is different in chemistry and texture, summer snow differing from winter snow. Summer brings 24 hours of sunlight to the polar regions, and the top layer of the snow changes in texture—not melting exactly, but changing enough to be different from the snow it covers. The season turns cold and dark again, and more snow falls, forming the next layers of snow.
Around 20 years ago, a nearly 2-mile-long core sample was taken from the Greenland ice sheet, providing a record of at least the past 110,000 years. Even older records going back about 750,000 years have come out of Antarctica.
In 2011, a 10,928-foot column of ice was taken out of the Antarctic by US researchers.
The site for this project was chosen because it is unusually thick and also comparatively stable, not having moved or flowed as much as other Antarctic ice.
These are very clean and detailed ice samples that will allow scientists to literally count off the time, like with tree rings, more than 40,000 years into the past.
These samples provide data that is be matched to ice taken from Greenland cores.
There have all ready been numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies spawned from this sample.
Trapped in these ice cores are bubbles of atmospheric gas.
Weather/climate is determined by spectrographic an/alysis of these gas bubbles.
If there had been a WWF, there wouldn't be differences in these gas bubbles.
There is other evidence that comes in the form of trapped dust. For example, volcanic activity causes specific particles to be deposited in the snowfall – these dust particles give further evidence of the age of these samples.
Detailed ana/lysis of acient ice cores can be found in the paper:
"Microbial Ana.lyses of Ancient Ice Core Sections from Greenland and Antarctica"
– Caitlin Knowlton, Ram Veerapaneni, Tom D'Elia, and Scott O. Roger
But seriously – Do you believe that Noah and his 3 sons managed to find suitable trees, cut then down, season the wood, transport it, cut and shap it, nail together and then seal all the wood for 216,525 square feet of the Ark's frame, plus load-bearing walls, interior rooms, stalls, pens, and staircases using nothing but Bronze Age tools in the middle of the desert?
Where did they get the raw materials to produce the thousands of gallons of pitch needed to waterproof the ship's exterior of 114,750 square feet?
And what, more importantly, did they do with all the sh1t generated by all manner of creature, great and small for an entire year? The humans must have spent every moment of their day gathering it, moving it on deck and tossing it overboard.
The rate that everest is growing, muultiplied back 5000 years means that at it's current rate ( and geologic records show that it has remained a steady rate for FAR longer the 5000 years(, the difference would be 1000 feet...for purposes of theis lesson, it is negligable. * when you calculate the volume of water at a difference of 1000 feet on a sphere of 26,000 miles, 1000 feet is insignificant for this. There STILL is not nearly the amount of water necessary.
I have seen believers make huge wild speculations as to how all of the ridiculous story might perhaps, be found to squeeze a tiny portion into what we know, but the whole of the story is myth, and none of the wild "what if" speculation like maybe god had all the animals in a trance, or in hibernation...blah blah blah...by the lame tiny little story in the bible, no one can make any of those claims.
The fact is, many sciences show that the flood never happened. You live in a fake reality world written by a bunch of ignorant men, who took their stories from previous cultures.
The noah myth never happened, and neither did most of the rest of the garbage that is the bible.
Only a man as blind as you would not be able to see the OBVIOUS flaws in the bible.
"the top layer of the snow changes in texture—not melting exactly, but changing enough to be different from the snow it covers." – well no actually not melting ever.
These are very clean and detailed ice samples that will allow scientists to literally count off the time, like with tree rings, more than 40,000 years into the past. – tree rings are not ice samples and ice samples are not tree rings. neither are hard coded to chronological years. it's akin to saying it snows once a year. do you really suppose you know how often it snows in a 24hr period there? if so, you're doing better than the people who actually go down there.
"These samples provide data that is be matched to ice taken from Greenland cores." so are the katabatic and adiabatic winds the same in Greenland as they are in the Antarctic? no of course not.
this is baloney but if you evolut1on1sts want to place all you trust in and BELIEVE in inexact junk science, feel free.
D0C – and furthermore you made the following unsubstantiated claim:
"There is 40 times as much salt water as fresh water on the planet."
– this cannot be proved at all and is on it's face absurd, i could say the moon has a hollow core and that doesn't make it so.
– and then you launch into the ice-core business which is also absurd since you nor anyone else knows how many times it's snowed on every given day going back into the past, nor do you know how many of those days were cloudy, nor do you know how wet or dry the snow falling was, nor do you know what the particulate count in the air was on each and every one of those days. there's alot you think you know and in your pride you convince yourself you know but you really don't. but feel free to go on believing in your science gods.
The point of ice core analysis is that we DO know the atmospheric makeup! particuate matter, weather pattern etc etc.
Do you understand that in the arctic and the antarctic that it is light for half the year and dark for the other?
Do you understand that this makes for distinct layerings that can be counted off like tree rings?
Speaking of dendrochronology:
The oldest living tree thus far found (measured by ring count) was a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine which was 4,862 years old. That means the tree was around 400 years older than Noah's oldest son Ja.pheth when the flood happened.
In California there is a colony of Palmer's Oak trees called Jurupa Oak that has been alive 13,000 years through clonal reproduction.
Professor Frank Vasek confirmed the age of a Creosote bush in the Mojave Desert known as "King Clone" using two different methods. His project counted rings and measured the distance of annual growth, and then used radiocarbon dating on chunks of wood found in the center of the ring. Both dating methods yielded an age of 11,700 years.
That makes the plant more than 7000 years older than Noah's flood.
The National Geophysical Data Center has data regarding the total volume of the world's oceans, which comprise 96.5% of the water on Earth. 2.5% of the Earth's water is classified as "fresh". The remaining 1% is salt water from other sources (ie:: salt flats etc.)
Ocean water has an average salinity of around 35%.
Fresh water, by definition, has less than 1% of that (0.35%)
D0C "In California there is a colony of Palmer's Oak trees called Jurupa Oak that has been alive 13,000 years through clonal reproduction"
LOL .. all trees clone themselves, it's how they reproduce. no big mystery there.
– again i'll say it, growth cycles are not entirely seasonal and other factors come into play such as moisture stress.
– proof of this is the fact that these trees/plants quoted are always on the coast or in the desert.
– there you go again with the radiometric dating methods that have by now been thoroughly debunked.
– even the so-called tree-ring expert in Arizona has major doubts of the authenticity of the supposed 10k yr old Norwegian spruce to date the oldest tree claimed to have been found.
– but if you want to go on believing the hyperbole, the half-truths, the myths, the outright lies, feel free to do so.
Everyone needs to stop waisting their time with you.
You are BRAIN DEAD.
Radiometric dating hasn't been "debunked".
It is becoming increasinbgly accurate as we accrue larger data sets for calibration against other dating methods.
The Ken Ham "historical science" thing is an obfuscatory tactic – that distinction, much like "micro/macro-evolution", exists only in the minds of young earth creationists.
Most of the time, I am loathe to mention radiometric dating in this forum because people like you automatically dismiss it without doing any kind of studying about it's actual practice or the complex calibrations involved to minimize margins of error.
Some other dating methods that have confirmed the age of the earth as being far greater than 10,000 yeras include:
Stratigraphy, Dendrochronology,Obsidian Hydration Dating, Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic , Luminescence Dating, Amino Acid Racemization, Fission-track Dating, Ice Cores, Cation Ratio, Fluorine Dating, Patination, oxidizable Carbon Ratio, Electron Spin Resonance , and Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating.
How can you possibly pit those against the bible, I mean come on, the bible says it right there in black and white!!!
You see? BOOM! Done! The bible, YEAH!!!
Convergence in the results of these independent dating methods — neither planned nor sought—const.itutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the validity of an Earth that is far, far older than 10,000 years.
believers in the efficacy of radiometric dating are severely deluded for many reasons but the chief reason is that
the amount of C14 in the atmosphere is NEVER constant, due to the nature of the solar rays/cosmic winds that produce it. The same is true for any method of dating based on radioactivity. secondly, the magnetic poles also make this dating method useless due to the fact that the earth's magnetosphere deflects the solar winds. absorption rates are constantly uneven.
– this does not even take into account the factors that impact decay rates such as neutrinos. so on both sides of the equation you have insurmountable flaws that cannot be overcome even with calibration methods since a baseline cannot be established.
– but please do ... go on with your story, feel free to believe the foolishness.
How is it that you contradict everything that modern science knows as facts as if you knew better? All you continue to do is waist everyones time because you simply repeat the nonsense from the creatards over and over with no regards to truth.
Why don't you submit your pathetic attempts at science to a real scientific journal so that we can all laugh? Oh you can't cause you are not a scientist!
Your delusion is just unbelievable!
if radiocarbon dating methods can be substantiated as viable methods for dating organic material then why is there this ongoing quest to find other methods. simply because it is not viable, and yet 'reputable scientists' still continue to use it or confirm it.
Maybe because smart people are always looking for better and better ways of doing thing? hum...
It's only you people who are stuck in the dark ages. Why don't you just go read up on the subject and instead of continuously posting this crap?
"why is there this ongoing quest to find other methods"
You can't think of any reason that we need multiple ways of gathering and confirming data?
Have you EVER taken a science class?
just as evolution is rooted in materialism, so is racism rooted in social Darwinism. these filthy ideas are responsible for so much of the discord and hate in this world. However, i have faith that good people will overcome this so I'm not worried.
awanderingscot – "...so is racism rooted in social Darwinism"
You do know that racism existed before Charles Darwin was born... right?
and "these filthy ideas are responsible for so much of the discord and hate in this world", you do also understand that the Crusades were indeed before Darwin as well.
Go get an education you bigot!
From wikipedia "Debate exists as to the nature and cause of their walking, including controversial speculation in the form of the Uner Tan syndrome that it may be a genetic throwback to pre-bipedal hominid locomotion. Nicholas Humphrey, who accompanied the documentary makers, concluded that it was due to a rare set of genetic and developmental circumstances coming together. First, their mother recalls that initially all of her 19 children started off walking with a bear-crawl (i.e. on their feet rather than their knees). Second, due to an inherited recessive genetic mutation, they have a non-progressive congenital cerebellar ataxia that impairs the balance children normally use to learn to walk bipedally. Not being able to manage the balance needed for bipedal walking, they perfected in its place their initial bear-crawl into an adult quadruped gait."
Yet again your vain attempt to discredit evolution fails. Do you have any evidence of creationism?
It was incest, pure and simple. By the way did you know that Charles Darwin and his wife Emma were first cousins?
The effets of incest, eh?
Does that mean you accept the reality of Mendelian genetics?
Can you explain how the human race is so genetically diverse (let alone still around) if the flood story is true and we are all descended from 3 breeding pairs of humans, with all the males being 1st order relatvies, a mere 4,000 years ago?
If we all descended from Adam and Eve, then again from what was left of Noah's family, there must have been a lot of incest and banging of first cousins.
If we all descended from Adam and Eve, then again from what was left of Noah's family, there must have been a lot of in.cest and banging of first cousins.
Why should that bother you? Noah's family had a pretty Kinki thing going on, and completely in accord with your god.
Einstein also married his cousin.
Didn't your jesus tell you not to judge? You can't even follow the simple rules from your own god.
Incest is just another example of HYPOCRISY in the Bible. The Bible talks against incest, but that was the ONLY method God used to populate the earth TWICE.
About 20 states still allow first-cousins to legally marry.
I wonder why one thinks that his marriage may have something to do with his work, being as the world was populated twice via incest, but there seems to be no problem with that.
Not to mention Lot and his daughters...etc.
Apparently it wasn't as shocking to them as it is to Scot.
the Mesopotamian sea used to be dry, then overflowed thousands of years ago. I believe this is where the noah's ark story(s) came from
Then the Lord said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth. – Genesis 7:1-3, NKJV
so atheists are lying when they state that God commanded every animal on earth to be taken aboard the ark. if He had intended every animal on earth He would have stated every animal on earth.
The Lord allegedly said. . .
But let's assume that your alleged but never proven god did not command that representatives of every animal be put on the alleged but never proven arch. If there really was a world wide flood, allegedly killing all living things except those on the alleged but never proven arch, how do you explain the existence of animals not natively found in the desert where the alleged but never proven Noah allegedly lived?
Since many branches of science have proven the whole story to be a myth, your point is moot.
Indeed igaftr. But I doubt snotty would even see a carrot if you were to dangle it right between his blinders.
It's simply unbelievable that something so simple can completely be over their heads.
But let's as.sume that your alleged but never proven god did not command that representatives of every animal be put on the alleged but never proven arch. If there really was a world wide flood, allegedly killing all living things except those on the alleged but never proven arch, how do you explain the existence of animals not natively found in the desert where the alleged but never proven Noah allegedly lived?
Did you miss the part that says "of EACH"? 7 of EACH clean and 2 of EACH dirty, and 7 of EACH bird! That's not just each animal, but male and female of EACH animal. LMAO!
Do you now how to multiply, because it's apparent that you can't. We are talking millions upon millions of animals!
Lying? NO, you are just delusional.
If we limit our list of animals to those specifically mentioned in the Bible in one verse or another, that’s about 120 “kinds”. God said to snag 7 breeding pairs of clean animals, but only 1 set for the unclean critters, making for a bare minimum of 1320 animals.
However, Noah would’ve also had to keep a good stock of animals to feed the carnivores.
The Bible also mentions that Noah started slaughtering cows, sheep and goats as soon as he got out of the boat in order to thank God for His mercy, so he would’ve needed a few spares for that too.
But any way you cut it, that is not enough of a breeding stock to stave off extinction within just a few generations thanks to the Founder Effect and genetic drift.
Just with humans, there is no way the entire race came from 3 breeding pairs of humans, with all the males being 1st order relatives, a mere 4,000 years ago.
Did God ever give ANY reason why he torturously drowned millions and millions of animals? What SIN had they committed?
awanderingTOT: 'HE' didn't say anything. Let me explain this to you in simple terms that your simple mind might finally comprehend.
A long long time ago, in a land far from the USA there lived tribes of men, women and children and potentially some beasties for travel and food purposes. These people didn't have great knowledge of the world around them and so when something out of the ordinary happened, they would invent reasons for it. As time went on man learned to write and in time those stories were put to paper but not necessarily in a language any of us would understand. The other very common way for story telling was verbally and as man traveled by foot or ass, they carried those stories with them-who doesn't enjoy a good story? However, mankind has a way of being manipulative and some men happened to grasp at these stories and decided to use them to take control and bring order (so to speak), unfortunately it also brought many war.
Fast forward 2000 plus years where we have terrific hard-core evidence that enables us to see the stories as having no merit. The fact that you fail to see them for what they really are only shows your complete ignorance.
You can keep denying evolution but your denial will never change the facts and no amount of apologetic crap you post will ever discredit it.
For someone who claims to be 56, your blathering on here tells us that your intellectual level is probably around that of a 3 year old.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary Evidences!
So here are those Extraordinary Evidences –hidden for 2000 years– within the BIBLE!
BIBLICAL EXCELLENT MIRACLES
have been discovered in the BIBLE (=in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Matthew, ....)!
Absolutely see it to believe it.
Stealing advertising again?
You have zero evidence of any gods or any miracles. None.
Go learn what evidence is and then come back.
e-v-i-d-e-n-t-l-y proof of evolution does not exist and IGA just hasn't figured it out yet.
Other than the huge mountains of evidence, that gets confirmed pretty much daily, the entire science of genetics, epigenetics and the industries based on the FACT of evolution, other than the entire scientific community accepting evolution because of the mountians of verifiable evidence,...other than all that, there is no evidence of evolution.
There is no evidence whatsoever of any deities, and THAT is what you haven't figured out yet, scot.
I have proven to myself over and over that God does exist, like you, one side seems absolutely ridiculous, to me saying there is no God or creator is ridiculous, thats just the way it is. If mankind has no chance of ever having any existence after this life the we must be a sorry miserable lot with no hope. I have faith and I have hope, again, I have proven to myself God exists in many ways, all I have to do is look at creation for one thing, even the complexity and uniqueness and wonders of the human body tells me man was created by an all knowing all powerful being. To me trying to believe that at one time dead matter somehow began to think and reason, or dead matter began to see, hear, smell, feel or taste, is ridiculous. Hey, like I say, we are all going to find out when the few short years we have come to an end, I tend to hope it will turn out good for all of us, but to whine, cry, mock, call childish names, hate and be nasty to those who think differently than us, is really not called for at all. Like you, if I am wrong I would accept it in a heartbeat if it was clear to me, but right now it's clear to me there is a God and creation and the bible is true and factual.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So while you have convinced yourself that the god of the bible is real, you have yet to convince anyone outside of your own ilk of that and until you do that there are some of us who will remain skeptical. By allowing yourself to accept that the bible is real when in fact it can be debunked easily just shows that you have a very closed mind and don't really care about anyone or anything other than what makes you feel good...kudos for showing why not to be Christian-the arrogance is immoral and your rant made you look like a 5 year old needing to ensure we know all about how real their imaginary friend is.
Grow up, get an education and face reality...you're not helping our world by remaining ignorant-in fact you're hindering it.
I really don't care what I sound like to you, maybe if you re read what you said the word hypocrite might stick out. My mind isn't closed at all, far from it, but I do know what I believe and why and the proof of God and the bible is good enough for me. You rant about me telling you something and yet you would just dispute it and not agree because your mind is made up and nothing will change it no matter what I say, so why would I waste my time. If God is real why would it be up to me to prove it to you, don't you think he can do that himself, isn't that his responsibility, so far he has shown millions. All you can do is come back with childish put downs and false hateful accusations and then try and point the finger that it's the other guy that's wrong, just because they dont see things the way you do, talk about 5 year old rants and looking foolish. You make other atheists look bad with your hateful stuff, if you don't like what others believe that's your choice, don't listen, we have just as much right as you do.
The Genesis accounts are refuted by our knowledge obtained across multiple disciplines; those accounts are the foundation of your religion – our god is so powerful it did all this, except it obviously didn't do all that. So no other evidence exists outside of the bible – leaving a sum total of zero tangible evidence.
ben: You have the right to believe as you wish, no-one is stopping that. What don't have the right to do is to expect anyone else to follow suit or use the threat of hell or use your belief to dictate what others should do with their bodies or who they can marry or insist it be taught as fact in public schools. Keep it in your home and church and out of the public square and respect the fact that you live in a Secular country.
We also have the right to demand that you meet the burden of proof when making your outrageous claims...don't want your beliefs questioned then be sure you can provide substantial evidence to support them or be prepared.
Children have imaginary friends and so do many people who suffer from the delusions of beliefs (nothing more than delusions...no evidence supporting any of it and you thinking you do makes it delusional).
I know what your saying but all Christians are not as you seem to think. I don't try to tell anyone how to live their life nor do I use the threat of hell if they don't. I don't even believe in the concept of "Dontaes Inferno" where a person goes to a place and burns in torture and pain and agony forever and be alive. That is not biblical but rather it is misinterpreted or read into the bible or believed by many just because thats what they heard. No Christian should try to push their religion onto others who don't want it, and the same goes for an unbeliever trying to push what they think onto others who don't want it, if someone asks or wants to know then okay tell them. I find it pointless to try and tell someone else how to live or what they should believe if their mindset is against it, all that will do is cause division. Usually a so called Christian or Athiest has some hate towards those who don't think like them, that's what I see in some of these comments. I believe only God can put it in the mind of a person that he is real or his way is the right way, or to repent of their sins, and only he can do so and will in his own way and time, therefore I won't attempt to do his job and try to tell anyone when they really don't want to know. The bible says to be ready to give an answer to those who ask about what you believe, not force it upon them. Too many Christians think its their job to try and convert others or bring them to Christ, Jesus himself saiid, no man can come to me unless the Father draws him, so it's impossible for someone to force Christ upon someone. On the other hand it is impossible for you to try and make me believe what you think if my mind is already set against it. Anyway, I do see what you mean and agree with you about Christians trying to push their beliefs onto others, but not all Christians do that, and those who do need to repent of it. There is a time and a place for that, and there is a time and a place to not do that.
Not arrogance but confidence. Nothing can be said or done to stop us from proclaiming the good news of His kingdom to those would humbly accept His offer of salvation. So you might as well stop trying.
Ever wonder why a supernatural omnipotent deity requires ignorant humans to spread this "good news" that does nothing but separate and bring chaos and destruction? Hum...
Don't worry, science will destroy you, one bit at a time and no pun intended.
Just like nobody can stop the Hubbardites from giving out free E-Meter evaluations.
Doesn't mean that they're right.
'For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline.' – 2 Timothy 1:7
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” – John 3:18-21, NKJV
Your bible quotes are quite amusing.
Some sheep herder writes something to make himself look good and we are supposed to take him seriously? All that passage does is give you an excuse to believe in the religion they trying to selling you.
Except the damn thing doesn't make any sense because we don't practice evil. We don't go killing people, we don't go robbing, atheists are actually the brightest minds on this planet as evidenced by higher standards of living in countries of less religiosity. Additionally, 85% of the top scientists in the academy of sciences, are atheists and produce the vast majority of the life changing technology that saves billions of lives and/or improves life in every single aspect of our lives. If you call that evil, then you are being dishonest and YOU are the bringer of evil. We simply learn and adjust according to the evidence, something you don't do.
You know, the Quran has passages that are exactly the same as that, and it's funny how you think their passages are garbage, while the muslims think that your passages are garbage.
Nothing but religious insanity.
Just as the rain falls to earth and does not return to Him empty in that it makes things grow and bear fruit; so does His word not return to Him empty and does bear fruit. His will cannot and will not be thwarted.
More useless religious propaganda based on empty words.
Every person who has ever been conned out of their life savings has also convinced themselves of something that common sense ordinarily should have steered them clear of. Greed usually plays a big part in opening yourself up to being conned too. Tell me, how much do you want God, Heaven and all the rest of it to be true?
Crazy people prove to themselves that they have invisible people talking to them all the time. What's your point?
Wether you have hope or faith of an afterlife, doesn't mean that there is one. The fact is, there is no evidence for an afterlife, while there is tons of evidence that our brain dies once that heart stops pumping.
Can we be 100% certain that there isn't an after life? Maybe and maybe not, but I'm not banking on it. I live my life aware of my mortality and therefore live every minute as if it was my last. I surely don't waist my time in church talking to thin air.
The creation as you call it, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, (yes, it means that you are not being reasonable) that it was not puffed into creation, but took billions of years to form by natural means. Everything that you mention about dead matter is a result of an ignorant position in your part, you are neither a biologist not a physicist and are no position to give an opinion on the subject. If you REALLY want to know how everything has taken place, go study and stop assuming you know, because you don't.
Why we call you names –
Calling you names is simply a reaction to the absurdities and outright lies that you are trying to propagate. Your kind used to burn people alive and here you are telling us not to call you on not only your ignorance, but on your attempt to spread such ignorance. We have the right to defend knowledge, but we rather do it with words than fire. You tell us who is a better person.
Change in a heartbeat –
Now your last sentence is the first sentence that makes good sense, but you have to prove it to us that you mean it.
Show us how the bible is true and factual. A. Tell us how is the bible "good" when it tells you how to treat slaves. How do you reconcile those two things.
and B. Tell us how you call your god "good", when he kicked is children out of paradise after ONLY ONE mistake, is that what you do with your children? Hum...
So if you are serious about your ability to change (which I doubt), study and come back with intelligent arguments on the subjects the following:
The Bible – Contradictions
Tell us how you reconcile facts proven by experiments with the creation story fro your bible.
Creation – Watch all the episodes.
Evolution – Simulation on computers
" If mankind has no chance of ever having any existence after this life the we must be a sorry miserable lot with no hope." Wow.. what a defeatist, pessimistic viewpoint. Apparently, you have convinced yourself that the current state of affairs is permanent, that humankind has no possibility of improvement and that we are doomed to endlessly repeat the errors of history. Also, the individual has no possibility of creating a fulfilled, useful life without having some fictional life after death, which is demonstrably untrue.
" If mankind has no chance of ever having any existence after this life the we must be a sorry miserable lot with no hope. "
Funny how 2 people can look at the same info and come to completely different conclusions isn't it?
In my mind, this being the only existence makes my life (and by extension all life) FAR more valuable and rare than it would be if I only saw this word as some kind of way-station to a better existence. Diamonds are valuable (primarily) because of their rarity. How much more valuable then must be life when we compare it to the volume of non-living matter in the universe?
Indeed, it is the promise of an afterlife, that makes this life so less precious to some, that they will fly into a building thinking they will meet Allah right after the impact.
No such thing as a world-wide flood. Not possible and there is no evidence. Just a bunch of dribbling fools accepting a mis-translated myth.
Just because someone believes something different from you all of a sudden they become as you say, "a bunch of dribbling fools". Who made you Mr. perfect know it all. Just because a person believes something not proven, doesn't make what they believe not true. You also believe something not proven, wouldn't that make you a hypocrite as well as a perfect Mr. Know it all.
Please define "proven". There is no such thing as absolute knowledge, but 'proven' in scientific terms is something that is supported by evidence. I am not the abritrator of what is right – reason is. Gravity and nevolution are equally proven. Those that argue they don't exist are foolish.
"Just because a person believes something not proven, doesn’t make what they believe not true."
Noah's Arc has been proven NOT to be possible by experts in their fields. This has nothing to do with "something not proven", it has everything to do with someone who refuses to see the evidence presented simply because they don't want to.
This is the behavior of a childish dribbling fool.
more than half the time it's your comments, dorian, which are comprised purely of alternating science blogs and insults.
none of the things you mention being proven are proven, you either don't realize you have faith in theories, don't fully understand how theoretical research works and think you do, or simply decide to consistently ignore that theories, are theories.
perhaps all of the above.
You really don't know what your talking about do you? You simply take one side of the story and try to present it as fact when it really isn't and showing your ignorance and hate as you do.
What are you talking about?
I'm presenting the scientific consensus from all the scientist on the entire planet, you know, those people that have satellites flying in outer space at 18K m/p, who know a thing or two about how to test things, while you are the only side that has absolutely no evidence and expect people to take your word for it.
But I guess you are used to taking people's word on things, instead of evidence, and that's why you take a book written by manipulative men, who tell you that this book is the word of a god and just because they tell you so, you believe it!
Go learn what real TESTABLE evidence is, and then come back as a grown adult. Until then, get a grip on reality, you are very, far, far away from it and that's not just me saying it, it's science saying it.
lol by "scientific consensus from all the scientist on the entire planet" you really mean: "some blogs you read that think the same as you"
good one, classic dorian. =]
Did you read it? Probably not, to complicated for you I suppose.
That's why christians love their bible, it's simple. It's god did this or that, no need to wonder or work on finding reality. It's all laid out for you.
The man in the bubble.
True I didn't read the link, however merely because you posted it. You serve only as entertainment fodder.
You are very easy to predict.
Just like the bible says, the wisdom of man is foolishness to God, I go along with him and think he knows what he's talking about. There was a flood and that's that regardless of what anyone thinks. God made sure his word is therefor mankind to either believe or reject, your choice, I choose to believe him. One thing for sure, we will find out in the end one way or the other, I like my chances compared to yours as far as what to believe goes. And before you say something like having an adult conversation, re read how childish your comments and hateful remarks are, the word childish and hypocrite sticks out like a sore thumb.
No there was no flood regardless of what YOU think. You are ignorant on the subject and there is absolutely no reason for anyone to pay attention of what you say on the matter.
Might as well listen to a crazy guy on a corner screaming that the end of the world is near.
You and him, same delusion.
hoody, So what "facts" are there in support of a global flood – all you have is millenia-old stories. No physical evidence has ever been found and nothing about the story holds water – not enough water for a global flood, and if there were how did it come and go? Logistics of the Ark story are impossible. Did a local flood occur and someone managed to survive with family and animals? Probably. Embellished and repurposed it emerges as the the global flood as described in Genesis. Did not happen.
Did so happen.
According to who? You? LMAO, We'll take that as a NO, it didn't happen.
Yes it did, according to Almighty God as you will find out in the end.
Where is your all mighty god? I can't see him.
hoody, So what "facts" are there in support of a global flood – all you have is millenia-old stories. No physical evidence has ever been found and nothing about the story holds water – not enough water for a global flood, and if there were how did it come and go? Logistics of the Ark story are impossible. Did a local flood occur and someone managed to survive with family and animals? Probably. Embellished and repurposed it emerges as the the global flood as described in Genesis, but it did not happen.
oops. It did not navigate to the post so I thought I had offended the word-filter.
Garet, the only reason half the posts are mine, is because EVERYONE is contacting me. What exactly did you think? That I was continuously posting to nothing? LMAO!
He is the product of public schools and a brain-dead parrot,
See what I told you about awanderingscot?
**NEWSFLASH** for DORIAN
Not every scientist is an atheist or an evolutionist. In fact it's a lot less than you imagine.
News flash for you, the TOP, not the ones working for the top dogs, are the atheists.
93% of the top scientists, you know those in the National Academy of sciences, are atheists.
The 50% that you read about, are about scientist in general, that could be me, because I studied computer "Science", but I don't consider my self a "scientist" because I am not in any direct science research field as biology or physics, or what have you.
Eat your heart out.
ever hear of the Cambrian Explosion? this is where hundreds of creatures just suddenly appeared for which there are no predecessors. very un-Darwin don't you think? try thinking logically and for yourself for a change.
There is a difference between believing something unproven and believing something that has been disproven.
There was no global flood 4000 years ago.
there coulda been, maybe so maybe not.
NO, there is no maybe. That is like saying maybe or maybe not there is a pink monkey flying around venus. Anything of the magnitude of a global flood would have left massive amounts of evidence everywhere.
When you understand that, you will start to comprehend, how evidence and the lack thereof, dictate what reality is.
well i understand you think that and so do many others, but i also see people that think otherwise and i don't have the same opinion about those people lol.
i think the more scientific minds you have that want a certain model, the more that model will start looking credible to a scientific community. science should be objective, but i don't believe it is at this day in time.
to be direct about my own thoughts, and not just pitching possibilities – though i'm stil not really decided – I think that with as many floods as there have been that are counted locally around when the the last ice age is thought to have ended and glacial melts etc, we can't rule out that they could be displaced markers of a global flood... because there are just too many forces of displacement out there and we use events that cause massive local displacement to explain many things in our perceived geological history. (i,e things like a giant asteroid killing the dinosaurs or Theia collision forming the moon)
i see attempts to rule it out but they jump too far on not enough info for me to just believe it. i think it's probably more likely that there's some confusion from the story being passed down, but in the mean time i'm waiting for harder proof.
human error is historically large, so I don't trust it very easily. maybe you can do this, and that's great for you, but i really cannot come to a conclusion based solely on today's geological evidence that a global flood hasn't happened or that one has, and on what time scales.
i do know that certain physical processes could transform a world where that did happen into the world we have today. by the same token other physical processes could have played out via solar accretion and the usual model of formation over millions of years. and its possible both have degrees of accuracy. it just depends on what offsets you apply and where in time you apply them.
it's really sooo easy to come up with sooo many different ways to get the same, current set of results. i wish it werent because then i could be more sure.
until we've got better scans with better simulations and less interpretations, i'm just going to be at maybe yes and maybe no.
my concepts might not be 'kosher' with you lol, but i'm not motivated to trying to preserve the biblical view. I just want to keep my mind open until I know exactly what happened.
If there's a mistake, it just means the bible should get corrected to reflect the more accurate account. To do that I have to be open to any version of the story and investigate potentials both extremely likely and unlikely.
There is nothing in the bible that is accurate. From Genesis I the Apocalypse, it's practicality all fiction, which some exceptions here and there.
I don't know what happened to my previous post, but it didn't post.
The scientific method is there to take humans out of the equation, because it is a self correcting mechanism.
You are back to being incoherent and I don't have the time for this. Just about everything you said is utterly false.
You only have time to spread your nonsense, anyone who doesn't agree with you no matter how true it is, you can't stand and call them names. I refuse now to even read one word of your self righteous nonsense. Delete.
well not really, but you are welcome to think so.
Garett; Your wasting your time with Dorian, I don't even read his comments anymore because if you have anything to say that doesn't fit into his thinking he just resorts to childish name calling, he likes to put himself above others that way but doesn't realize how foolish he sounds. Although he is wrong in most of what he says, that I don't mind, that's up to him, but he thinks he is so right that he can't tolerate anyone who disagrees. He's a very deceived person and a deceived person doesn't realize they are deceived. You just can't disguss things with a know it all, they will just get upset so what's the point. Simply ignore him, you know your wasting your breath by his childish comments.
That there was so global flood is evident merely because there are bodies of fresh water.
If the oceans flooded and the entire globe was covered, the volume of salt water would overtake the extant fresh water.
That civilization existed in the middle east immediately following the supposed Noahic flood, that means there was fresh water. Since there is no possible way that all the lakes and rivers in the world could de-salinate themselves overnight, there could not have been a global flood as described in the Bible.
ok so you don't believe a worldwide flood happened? here's something to chew on that you won't be able to spit out.
Adolf Hitler – atheist and evolutionist – is now believed to have been responsible for the deaths of between 15-20 MILLION people
By 1940, however, it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianity. Instead, after 1938 Hitler began to publicly support a Nazified version of science, particularly social Darwinism, at the core of Nazi ideology in place of a religious one – a development that is reflected in private in his increasingly hostile remarks towards religion in Table Talk.
In office, the Hitler regime conducted the Kirchenkampf (lit. church struggle). While wary of open conflict with the churches, Hitler generally permitted or encouraged anti-church radicals such as Himmler, Goebbels and Bormann to conduct their persecutions of the churches. According to Evans, by 1939, 95% of Germans still called themselves Protestant or Catholic, with 3.5% 'Deist' (gottgläubig) and 1.5% atheist – most in these latter categories being "convinced Nazis who had left their Church at the behest of the Party, which had been trying since the mid 1930s to reduce the influence of Christianity in society".
Who do you think did the killing? that 95% Protestants or Catholics!!! Religious soldiers did the KILLING.
Great article here.
Adolf Hitler's hatred of Christianity
Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity." Many historians have come to the conclusion that Hitler's long term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany
Adolf Hitler's hatred of Christianity
"Science cannot lie ... It's Christianity that's the liar" – Adolf Hitler, Table Talk
“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.”
- Adolph Hitler, 1936, Reichstag, Berlin
"Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors." is the claim made by evolutionary paleontologists but where are the examples? Prove it instead of just saying it. why for example is the trilobyte the very same creature that existed in the Cambrian? it has not been proven and it will never be proven that transitional creatures exist. until a transitional species fossil is found evolutionists remain dreamers.
What does Hitler have to do with the impossibility of a global flood?
Your deflection shows that you can't explain how there was fresh water after a global flood.
"Evolutionists stated and hold as fact that matter has been here for all eternity."
Some do, but most biologists aren't experts in physics, just as most physicists aren't experts in biology.
You're drawing a specious parallel.
Matter can't be neither created nor destroyed, that's the law of conservation.
"until a transitional species fossil is found "
ALL fossils found are transitional, since evolution is ongoing.
Have you looked at Tiktaalik? The first known walking land animal/fish, the first animal that we know of that could do a push up? His DNA is in you.
no such thing as validity in your comment actually
What an utter load of horse shat.
GREAT MIRACLES have been discovered in BIBLE.
You can unmistakably witness it with your own eyes
==BIBLICAL EXCELLENT MIRACLES==
Circular reasoning, try again and this time without using the bible to defend its own stories!
"knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water." 2 Peter 3:3-6, NKJV
What a load of useless insanity.
Go get help, please.
Those who deny natural science are fond of quoting theory and half-truths. Included in the litany of lies told is that some trees predate the account of a worldwide flood that is 4500-4800yrs ago, but there is absolutely no evidence of this. They also state that tree rings can help in disproving the biblical account. They point to the bristlecone pine (4800yrs), and a cypress tree in Iran (4000yrs), but these dates are still post-flood and it really cannot be proven they are that old. Trees rings don't help either since it has not been established that growth cycles for all species of plants and trees correspond with our calendar year. For example many plants and trees in arid regions and along some coasts can have upwards of 3-5 growth cycles in a 12 month period. That's 3-5 tree rings! This is attributed to much of the precipitation coming as a result of moisture precipitating out of the air as dew or condensing out of fog. It is in between the moisture stress to the tree during period of 'drought' that growth can and does take place. As for the age of trees, Redwood trees live between 500-700yrs and even the giant Sequoias can only live 2000yrs +/- 200yrs. Every organism on earth has limitations and trees are no exception. These are the facts. The fact is there are absolutely no trees older than 2-3 thousand years and it is wishful thinking on the part of mythmakers that put the age of trees thousands and thousands of years. It's a hoax.
The fact that the earth doesn't contain enough water to flood to the levels claimed by the Bible is just another proof that the story of Noah's Ark may be one of the earliest tales of science fiction.
Well it was a way for them to make sense of their suffering caused by the local flood, which they saw as the whole world due to their limited understanding of the size of earth.
Apparently, all of these independent researchers, who replicate their findings with multiple samples, and then corroborate their findings with other independent researchers, including those using radiometric methods, are all involved in a vast conspiracy to undermine the genesis narrative.
I think some are misunderstanding my comment. I'm not a creationist.
The flood is an ancient story, just as is admitted to here, what is a load of crap is the conclusion of the article that states that this in no way makes the bible less authoritative.
That's like someone loosing a fight and walking out jumping and screening that they've won.
@DM – For the record, my comment was in response to scot's diatribe against dendrochronology and your posts don't at all suggest you're of the science-denying creationist ilk. Furthermore, I think you're spot on with respect to claims of preeminent biblical authority.
We'll thank you Sr. You are both a gentleman and a scholar.
@ DM – "That's like someone loosing a fight and walking out jumping and screening that they've won."
We see this frequently, particularly with creationists. For future reference, it's sometimes referred to as "Pigeon Chess."
oh please.. "independent researchers" makes me smile. they all get their money from the government which is why they perpetuate this myth of evolution. they are smart in the sense that they know which side of their bread is buttered!
"The fact that the earth doesn't contain enough water to flood to the levels claimed by the Bible" Really? can you prove this? So all the ice at the poles and glaciers, all the water in atmosphere, all the water underground counts for nothing then? And you think somehow you are scientific? makes me laugh, did you know for example that 90% of the ejection from volcanoes is H2O vapor. You are aware aren't you that all of the land mass on earth was at one time concentrated to one continent? You are are aware also that there are 'young' mountain chains on every continent now and that upheaval continues to this day aren't you? You really should research these things better before you spout off.
Amusing. The guy who didn't have a CLUE in the world how much effect it would have if all the clouds rained out, is now pretending he knows science.
So tell us how water can come out of the ground and no water go back in to fill the vacuum left? OOOPS again.
If you melt all the ice on earth, if you use all the water in clouds, if you use all the water trapped under rocks, and if you add it all up, you would only get enough water to lift the sea level by 400 meters. Our highest peaks are over 10,000 meters! Do you know how to add?
How much water would it take?
The total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers http://www.space.com, USGS.gov
Volume of a sphere = 4/3 r3 where r=radius
Radius of Earth = 6,378.15 Kilometers
Height of Mt. Everest = 8.85 Kilometers
The volume of water needed to cover Earth to the height of Mt. Everest is approximately the difference in volume of a sphere needed to encompass Mt. Everest and the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth.
Volume of a sphere encompassing the Earth at sea level
= 4/3 (6,378.15 KM)3 = 1,086,825,918,019 KM3
Volume of a sphere encompassing Mt. Everest
= 4/3 (6,378.15 + 8.85 KM)3 = 1,091,388,460,971 KM3
The Difference = 4,530,488,766 KM3
Notice that this is more than 3 TIMES the amount of water presently on Earth.
It would be nice if you went back to school and at least took some basic math.
If the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet with the current surface water. De-normalized until that's 40 feet of water while considering tectonic plate shifting, massive currents, temporary and turbulent high pressure systems, etc it is feasible to achieve the land distribution we have currently.
Most of our notable mountain ranges, such as the rockies and Himalayas see to be composed of seabed material and we find marine fossils practically everywhere on earth. There's a thousand and one reasons that a huge scale water event like that could easily localize features and distort the results of age checking methods.
I'd expect pre-flood fossil records to exist, there's no reason this is a disproof of anything really. Seems a very separate topic that constantly gets brought into play sheerly from the force of 7-day creation vs evolution believers. We definitely find displaced fossils in places they don't seem to belong, and I maintain that dating technology is still very shaky and unreliable. You can easily trick carbon dating in your own back yard.
Though that's merely assuming God must play by the limited human understanding of physics which is a silly issue. There could be physical processes or not; there's no reason to assume that's a requirement unless one is simply close minded to a higher being they're accountable to.
Even if you were to disagree with the religious implications, there's certainly enough water for a global flood at some point in Earth's history. In fact there's more than what I've mentioned (which only accounts for surface oceans). Recent findings show what has long been suspected by many geologists: that within the mantle there is likely even more water than the combined content of all our oceans.
The amount of water that's been absorbed underneath the Earth's crust is quite massive. Whatever the supposed probability, it is not impossible for that water to have existed as a form which could have been temporarily forced to the surface in the past and been reabsorbed.
Consider our limited understanding of the formation of large scale planetary events, including the Earth. Our geological morphology is not so advanced really.. for instance the moon is considered by many to have formed out of a Theia/Earth collision should have left Earth with a surface-wide magma flood. While we don't have geological evidence supporting this, it is still the leading belief in 'scientific communities'.
There are many possible corrections and alternative processes which may or may not have lead to the same result. You can choose any target reaction and correct towards it being possible, but it doesn't mean that is what truly happened – same with the flood, land/fossil/mineral distribution and atmospheric changes.
Couple of thoughts:
1) I'm not too concerned about calculations of requisite water, but would note that you begin with wholly unsupported notions of a uniformly flat earth which is clearly contradicted given genesis reference to pre-existing mountains.
2) Without invoking some miracle, I'm aware of no hydrological process which would cause the uplifting of mountains or rapid separation of tectonic plates as your model seems to require (particularly in light of the sheer energy required and the energy necessarily released via friction, etc). Furthermore, the seabeds and their fossils aren't merely on top of mountains, they are deeply within and throughout the mountains, indicating far more than a couple thousand years of prior deposition (not to mention the radically accelerated rate of fossilization required prior to uplift).
3) There is no evidence of any great upwelling of water from beneath the surface at the required volumes or rates, nor is there any evidence that such volumes could be reabsorbed at the required volumes or rates. In other words, even if you have addressed the source (which I don't think you remotely have), you still haven't accounted for where it all went.
4) The fossil record is progressive, meaning as one moves from lower strata to higher strata there are distinct points at which forms appear and then continue to appear, but not below. For example, with vertebrates we see first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds. Similar progressive records exist for inverts, plants, etc, including within the "mountainous seabeds." This relative ordering is not contested by creationists, who have offered a variety of models to account for the progressive order, e.g. "hydrodynamic sorting," "eco-zonation," "differential escape," and "floating biomes." However, they all fail because we can clearly observe forms of similar density, occupying similar niches/geography, separated by many, many layers of strata. Add to this forms which were specifically adapted to aquatic environments (e.g. plesiosaurs, etc), but somehow every last extinct form managed to drown and be buried prior to the very first modern forms (e.g. dolphins, etc). Add to this, phylogenetic analyses of both extant and extinct forms which somehow miraculously corroborate the observed progressive order of the fossil record. Add to this observations of forms which bear traits which bridge the allegedly specially-created kinds, e.g. tiktaalik bearing both fish and tetrapod features, archeopteryx bearing both dino and bird features. It's also worth noting that these fossil order relationships are relative and so even if one erroneously discounts the validated physics and chemistry of radiometric dating, the observations still confound a literal genesis account.
5) I'm unaware of any original research, i.e. not a creationist opinion piece quote-mining from actual peer-reviewed research, which confirms a fossil found that would confound evolution. No rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, no humans alongside dinosaurs, etc. Were these confounding fossils discovered, the researcher would have their pick of top-tier journals to publish in.
Creationists invariably require that the entire body of mainstream science be so fundamentally-flawed as to be effectively useless, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, etc. Yet, whereas these disciplines are validated in daily applications, the only consistent application for creationist hypotheses is apologetics.
Whereas evolution has a validated mechanism, creationism has magic. Whereas evolution was the result of observation first, and then hypothesis generation and testing, creationism begins with the conclusion and then desperately searches for any perceived support. At every opportunity to present their alleged "evidence" in both mainstream scientific literature and impartial courts, creationism has consistently failed to make its case.
All that said, I and all of mainstream science could be wrong and the next fossil dig, rather than continuing a consistent support of evolution, might find that truly confounding fossil. Though highly improbable, it's nonetheless a possibility. It's also possible that the biblical deity actually exists and is responsible for observable biodiversity. Again, highly improbable in my book, but nonetheless a possibility.
But are you willing to make the same concession? Are you willing to concede that you might be wrong?
Is it possible that evolution is true, and perhaps more to the point, is it possible that the biblical deity doesn't actually exist?
Where is the thumbs up button when you need one?
Great post, but they will never concede.
They really just "Can't handle the truth".
Well, for starters, I didn't suggest the earth was flat; see where I mention de-normalizing the surface. I'm simply mentioning that if the earth was that much more of a smooth sphere closer to it's origins, which is possible, then a flood does not require the same volume of water.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil for fossils which exist in multiple strata
Geology isn't really accepted as a hard science by most scientist such as physics, geneticists and chemists anyway.. certainly from an information scientist point of view, being somewhat softer itself.
Sedimentary layers are subject to equally prescribed and equally unproven methods of dating said layers. If you use radiometric dating, you can arrive at conclusions that support radiometric dating.
Saying radiometric dating is validated, I can't see where you get that – certainly not from peer reviewed resources. Isochron dating is pretty silly as we already know half-lives are not stable but vary from particle to particle, environmental stresses are highly variable and particle distribution occurs along curves based on many factors and certainly not uniform...
Neither can we empirically test most forms of isochron dating to be accurate due to their standard deviations of so many years and error leeway far outside of observable history, so you've just got to assume that based on faith in relative probabilities yourself. I think the majority of sedimentary layers are much more probable to have been caused by water and/or other disasters and forms of quick sedimentation given the trends seen in them.
Separately, peer reviews are not really authoritative, nor do your opinions represent 'mainstream science' which is practically never in agreement with itself. However if you're looking for peer reviews, I don't think a blog about belief is really the place to find them. Perhaps try ResearchGate,
"However, they all fail because we can clearly observe forms of similar density, occupying similar niches/geography, separated by many, many layers of strata." You say 'because' but the statements that follow don't prove any failures. You can only find conclusions in which they support your view but not prove or disprove other views.
I can't really comment much on your opinion of creationists; I don't really categorize myself as such in the first place. Evolutionary scientists have contributed very little in comparison to theistic scientists in the history of physics, chemistry and biology however.
If we're discussing the viability of the modern theory of evolution, it is far too disordered to have the potential to create life statistically, and the disorder is preserved so no one can say intelligent design, or so I'm inclined to believe. All I need to do is refer you to epigenetic study really.. evolution requires a vast physical memory of useless genetic information that we simply don't have among many other inconsistencies. At very least intelligent and ordered progression of genetic information would occur based on organized ionization patterns originating from photonic activity.. but that doesn't fit with current ideas of evolution.
In any case, evolution is not actually incorporated into the Standard Model, chemical biology, medical biology, genetics or practically any field aside from paleontology and evolutionary biology itself. Evolution is really a faith-based religious view just as much as any other; not a spiritual view but it still falls into faith and religion more than science.
Personally I'm more interested into the similarities in cosmological systems to organic systems than most of the evolution vs creation situation as I don't even see these as opposites. Both sides of the debate use too much bias for me to trust peer reviews from creationist, geologists or paleontologists... there's just not the same rigor as other fields and its all speculative.
Regarding your question, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Moses could easily have mis-authored the story to the best of his ability at the time – being that it was passed down verbally for so many generations. In the same way, I generally consider that the traditional text counted as the Bible is not the literal Bible but more closely resembles the cannonized political view of the original catholic church pandering to Constantine and a half pagan populace.
Soooo, there's a great amount of room for possibilities on the full truth of who and what God is and has done.
I can't really concede that a deity does not exist but God may be quite different than your classical christian assumes, can't put dieties in a box really.
I simply have confidence that we have at least the minimal amount of information needed to observe the existence of and respond to the most important needs of relating to God. I think it's highly likely we don't have an extreme amount of accuracy on the subject.
With all due respect, suggesting the earth was smoother because it was closer to its origins ignores the various flood accounts referencing then existing mountains, and ignores that said mountains already contain a progressively ordered fossil record within their strata (and not merely deposited on the surface.) Furthermore, there remains no evidence for the massive subterranean water exodus or return as suggested by your earlier conjecture.. Still furthermore, suggesting that “strong currents” of water could be responsible for plate movements and mountain uplift is wholly unsupported by any science I'm aware of.
Your wiki link provides sufficient response to “Polystrate” fossils and why they are not a confounding observation.
When I say radiometric dating is validated, I’m referring to the peer-reviewed studies which use multiple methods producing corroborating results. Further validation is available via independent analysis by other researchers, using multiple methods, moving through the geologic column to yield progressively older dates moving from higher to lower strata. Such corroboration cannot be explained by chance or by systemically flawed decay rate assumptions.
Direct observation is not a requirement for science to operate. For example, I don’t need to directly observe the conception in order to verify that a genetic paternity test yields reliable results.
When I refer to mainstream science, I’m effectively referring to a given scientific consensus which is directly alleged to be fatally-flawed by ID/creationism; I reference mainstream science, but I certainly do not hold myself out as its singular voice. Nor did I suggest that peer-review is authoritative; however, it does openly invite and provide an independent assessment of the appropriateness of methodologies employed within a given manuscript. Furthermore, peer-review and publication in mainstream scientific journals provides for both corroboration and contradictory findings, evidencing an honest systematic approach towards elucidating facts. To my knowledge, ID/creationism outlets reject a priori any potential “research” which might appear to contradict their religiously-based views. The suggestion that mainstream science is practically never in agreement is plainly absurd. It was mainstream science which identified the hereditary material as DNA, identified HIV as the etiological agent of AIDS, etc, etc. Of course there are crackpots which will invariably reject these facts, but that hardly represents an absence of consensus or agreement.
The failures of the creationist models alleged to account for the order of the fossil record is precisely because we observe forms of similar density, occupying similar niches/geography separated by many, many layers of strata. For example, Ornithomimosauria are exclusively found in strata from the late Cretaceous and below. Modern Ostriches are found exclusively in strata from the Miocene and above. Somehow, despite their similar size and density and their similar niche and geographical distributions, all of the dinosaurs drowned and were buried long, long before the ostriches which allegedly lived in the exact same place at the exact same time. Yes, I understand this isn’t “proof.” But to any rational person, it’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the creationist explanations are confounded by these observations.
Evolutionary science is the basis for why we use particular animal models for virtually every pre-clinical medical study, beginning with rodents, moving to macaques, and then chimps before clinical trials with humans. Evolutionary science and phylogenetic analyses are the basis for every study searching for genes relating to developmental disease and disorder. Evolutionary science has validated applications in fields ranging from medicine to agriculture to engineering. Evolutionary science is the basis for combinatorial chemistry and targeted drug development employing in vitro evolution methods (e.g. SELEX). Although your historical theist scientist statement is noted, how many patents do you see coming from AIG and ICR or the Discovery Insti-tute? How many oil/mineral companies have abandoned mainstream geology in favor of creationist “flood geology”?
I have no idea why you reference epigenetic studies in relation to “useless genetic information.” But the fact remains, that much of our genomes are comprised of defective transposons, defective RNA viruses, pseudogenes, etc. I would point you to our defunct gene for egg yolk protein as a nice example of a history of useless genetic information (which phylogenetic analyses just happen to correlate to the evolution of placental reproduction). I would also state the evidence for biological evolution is independent of evidence for abiogenesis; that is, even if we cannot definitively arrive at a conclusion as to how life arose, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that life has dramatically evolved since its inception. In support of evolution we have direct evidence of mutation and selection adding new and “complex specified” information to organisms (e.g. Lenski’s E. coli), we have direct observations of speciation both in the lab and in the wild, we have direct evidence of dramatic morphological adaptations (e.g. Pod Mrcaru lizards), and then we have a progressive fossil record whose order is corroborated via phylogenetic analyses of both extant and extinct forms (to name a few lines of evidence).
“At very least intelligent and ordered progression of genetic information would occur based on organized ionization patterns originating from photonic activity.. but that doesn't fit with current ideas of evolution.”
Evolution is the cornerstone of biology as it is the only explanation which has a demonstrable mechanism supported by evidence from every relevant discipline, i.e. physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, astronomy. Again, for creationism to be correct, not only must our foundational understanding of biology be fatally-flawed, but all of these supporting disciplines must be so flawed as to be effectively useless.
Faith in empirical physical evidence and validated predictions and applications is not synonymous with a religious faith in a holy book narrative, nor in the more general religious faith of some intangible causal agency absent any empirically verifiable evidence. Pure erroneous and false equivalence.
“I can't really concede that a deity does not exist.”
I didn’t ask you to concede the fact, just the possibility. But judging from your definitive and declarative statements regarding God (big “G”), my guess is that you would be unwilling to make this concession. It’s difficult to understand how one would base their arguments against evolution on alleged deficiencies of evidence, but then be incapable of extending some smidgen of this unreasonable degree of skepticism to their own preferred conclusion regarding the existence or non-existence of their preferred deity.
"and ignores that said mountains already contain a progressively ordered fossil record within their strata"
Again I havent said the Earth was flat, but that it could be flatter. Also, the idea that the fossil layers preserve ordering is neither uncontested nor verified. In fact if you actually go on a dig, it is fairly common to find fossils that seem not to belong in that strata. The main purpose of index fossils to begin with is because those particular creatures seem to wind up in a particular one most of the time. There are explanations that can arrive at conclusions for polystrate fossils, but these are not empirically proven, neither are the majority of things referenced in your response. You simply take the word of other's texts for it by faith in their process.
Besides, why does a global flood have to mean there are no strata beneath it with past animals? AFAIK it doesn't mean that.
On preexisting mountains, I'm not suggesting there were no mountains, simply that -if- there were shorter ones and the water seeped into the mantle over time while tectonic activity pushed up the existing ranges that had deposits on them, today's mountains should be much higher than they were and would not indicate the water level required.
"When I say radiometric dating is validated, I’m referring to the peer-reviewed studies which use multiple methods producing corroborating results. Further validation is available via independent analysis by other researchers, using multiple methods, moving through the geologic column to yield progressively older dates moving from higher to lower strata. Such corroboration cannot be explained by chance or by systemically flawed decay rate assumptions"
If you are taught radiometric dating methods in any reputable school of science, the inconsistent and fallible nature is one of the first things you learn. Not only is there a tremendous margin of error and deviation, not only is there a high rate of corrections needed to align results to an assumed dating system contrived based on circular logic from the 1800s, not only do tools used in said dating always produce significant error rates of their own, but we also know that isotopes are not as stable as once thought. The fields of molecular chemistry, particle physics, high energy physics and quantum physics have debunked the validity and consistency of isochron dating continually. Holding to it is something only of interest to those in the specific communities aiming to support evolution.
"Evolutionary science is the basis for why we use particular animal models for virtually every pre-clinical medical study, beginning with rodents, moving to macaques, and then chimps before clinical trials with humans. Evolutionary science and phylogenetic analyses are the basis for every study searching for genes relating to developmental disease and disorder. Evolutionary science has validated applications in fields ranging from medicine to agriculture to engineering. Evolutionary science is the basis for combinatorial chemistry and targeted drug development employing in vitro evolution methods (e.g. SELEX). "
This is patently untrue and merely your belief. There are multiple phylum structures in use for classification but regardless of this, moving testing from mice to increasing genetic similarity is not the same as evolution being a basis. The basis for research relating to genetic disease and disorders in humans is the human genome project and case-by-case DNA samples. Geneticists use empirical and verifiable data not presumed historical correlations.
'Evolutionary science is the basis for combinatorial chemistry and targeted drug development..' Combinatorial chemistry was pre-existing, and drug targeting has been enhanced greatly by genetics but this is not the same as evolution. I think there is a trend of you trying to claim all the accomplishments of genetics as pro-evolution but if so that is merely an opinion. You may think of genetics as being an observer of that process but that presumes the theory is correct, either way genetics is perfectly capable of standing on it's own through current data and samples. The field does not model itself after historical correlations.
"Evolution is the cornerstone of biology as it is the only explanation which has a demonstrable mechanism supported by evidence from every relevant discipline, i.e. physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, astronomy." Evolution has none of these, further opinion but even biology, aside from evolutionary biology, does not integrate evolution into the models. Many scientists are taught evolution so they don't go out of there way to seek out disagreement there, but biology like physics and genetics are based on current and updating physical samples and observations of current systems. Geology and paleontology are no where near the level of the other three you mention in terms of credibility in the scientific community.
Very few, certainly not myself, would argue about adaptation. Of course life changes after creation this is not surprising at all. Still, there are often many times fossils have more than a resemblance to modern creations even in the Cambrian but they're simply reclassified as a new species simply to fit the model. Dating techniques were invented to fit the model based on the assumptions in the mid 1800s about rate of sedimentation, the consistency of which is very doubtfully linear. The Cambrian explosion doesn't really make sense in the current evolutionary model either, or at least so is my opinion of the matter.
"The suggestion that mainstream science is practically never in agreement is plainly absurd. It was mainstream science which identified the hereditary material as DNA, identified HIV as the etiological agent of AIDS, etc, etc. Of course there are crackpots which will invariably reject these facts, but that hardly represents an absence of consensus or agreement."
When DNA was first announced, the mainstream view was that it was absolutely wrong, it took time for the scientific community to assimilate the idea and during the meantime there were many disagreements. Similar to the findings of Faraday on magnetic fields, Einstein on relativity, Feynman on particle interactions and many others. As long as there are new discoveries and skepticism there will be discord in the 'mainstream' scientific community and it will change over time. Disagreement at large is part of the nature of scientific study and reform.
To say Lenski’s E. coli is adding new information is untrue in the case of genes, no new genetic information has been created only remixed to more appropriate adaptations. It's a very fancy adaptation experiment and pretty cool but it is not as if the E coli is going to turn into a fungus from that process. New functionality and new genes are way different things, I'm personally not against new genes forming naturally either, just not the way MTE describes things.
" It’s difficult to understand how one would base their arguments against evolution on alleged deficiencies of evidence, but then be incapable of extending some smidgen of this unreasonable degree of skepticism to their own preferred conclusion regarding the existence or non-existence of their preferred deity."
Well thats simple enough to answer, I wouldnt want to tell a close personal family member hey I think you might not have actually existed, cuz these guys doubt it. That would be mean. Further, I've at times held other beliefs but my confidence in the validity of God's existence is much higher than my faith in the Biblical texts or evolution. I can't speak for others but for me there's no shortage of evidence of God. Honestly I don't know about capitalizing the word, its not like I think god is God's name even, but it is more a way to clarify who I'm speaking of.
I want to note, I'm not entirely hostile to many of your viewpoints though it may come across that way, which is sorta bugging me. I do however have extreme disrespect for the geological community and isochron dating, much moreso than to general evolution itself. I know more about practical algorithms, their complexity and physics than I do about chemistry or biology by far, and I'm not professing any authority on those subjects though I do a fair amount of generalist research. These are just the beliefs and conclusions I have come to reading the impressions and concerns of other scientists both in and out of peer review journals.
You need to define 'flat'. And what a load of utter nonsense.
Yes the earth was just completely flat and fish were swimming along with humans for 10,000 years all in the same place.
Didn't you know that? Come on now... LMAO
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Flat as in spherically very very smooth. It's not nonsense at all, I'm just talking about geometry of surface area and simple volume. Shallower oceans, shorter mountains mean less water needed; plus there's likely more water soaked into the mantle than currently in the oceans, according to recent findings completely outside of either creationist or evolutionary debate.
If we are to consider what some folks on this forum are calling the mainstream view of geology, the Earth's surface changes quite drastically over time. Apparently it is fair to entertain models where the surface area and places of elevation are dynamic.
All I'm suggesting is that if you actually consider a global flood, the amount of water required to flood the Earth is not the same in the past as it is today.
Most planets indeed are more spherical the further back in their history you go after initial formation smooths them out and we do have plenty of water on this planet to flood it as it gets flatter.
Maybe my phrasing is poor, but I was in no way suggesting the Earth to ever have been so flat that it was actually flooded by thousands of meters over it's highest point.
If all of the clouds in the sky completely rained out, it would add less than 3 feet of water to the earth's surface.
The assumption that huge amounts of volcanic-temperature water could come out of the inner earth and not burn up the ark is ridiculous. But that's certainly not as ridiculous as the assumption that massive amounts of water could come out of the earth without gravity and the vacuum created pulling water back in. This a humorous work of science fiction.
“Again I havent said the Earth was flat, but that it could be flatter.”
I believe what you suggested was that in addition to being “flatter” that it was some unknown hydrodynamic forces that produced currently observable uplift and plate distribution. There is simply no supporting evidence for either of these claims. To my knowledge, the evidence indicates many ranges were in fact much, much higher, e.g. the Appalachians. There’s some irony in requiring a mythical global flood to both build and destroy mountains in the span of a year.
“There are explanations that can arrive at conclusions for polystrate fossils, but these are not empirically proven.”
Of course, “proven” is your word, but as we both know, whereas “proof” is fitting for formal logic and mathematics, it is not the standard for physical science. Again, the evidence indicating polystrate fossils were not the product of a global flood include, the presence of paleosoils at their base, the observation of regeneration (i.e. the trees didn’t immediately die but survived long enough after an initial partial burial), identification of distinct layers of sediments bearing distinct marine v. fresh/brackish froms, etc. Furthermore, while it is understood that localized rapid burial in sediments contributed to polystrate fossils, this by no means supports a global flood which would have left these fossilized stands in a far more ubiquitous distribution.
“Besides, why does a global flood have to mean there are no strata beneath it with past animals? AFAIK it doesn't mean that.”
Because, the narratives indicate coexistence of all extant and extinct forms with no pre-flood means to produce that number of fossils, nor the continuity of the progressive order of fossils between pre and post-flood strata.
“If you are taught radiometric dating methods in any reputable school of science, the inconsistent and fallible nature is one of the first things you learn.”
You are still alleging failures, but do not respond to how independent researchers, using multiple samples and methods, arrive at corroborating dates. Such corroboration cannot be explained by chance or by systemically flawed decay rate assumptions. It appears you’re bordering on the “vast conspiracy” of pro-evolution supporters to explain why these methods are still used, even in fields which have no direct allegiance to biological evolution. Nonetheless, even granting your unreasonable skepticism for radiometric dating, the relative positioning of strata and the fossils they contain confounds a global flood. A global flood cannot explain how forms of similar density, allegedly living in the same place at the same time, are separated by many, many layers of strata.
“moving testing from mice to increasing genetic similarity is not the same as evolution being a basis. The basis for research relating to genetic disease and disorders in humans is the human genome project and case-by-case DNA samples. Geneticists use empirical and verifiable data not presumed historical correlations.”
It is not merely belief; it was the basis for much of the work I and many, many others have done. Evolution is the only supported and viable explanation for relative genetic similarity (outside of invoking magic). That is, the animal models are chosen because they fall along some particular evolutionary lineage with a predictable and particular genetic similarity useful to the investigation, not necessarily whole genome similarity. For example, multiple discrete animal models, ranging from inverts to vertebrates, are used to investigate the relation of the N-terminus of the TATA-binding protein with respect to developmental disorders. Arguments for “common genome-common design” fail because we can clearly see examples of common design for which the genomes display distinct lineages, e.g. new world v. old world vultures.
The human genome is no doubt a useful tool, but it is the comparison of the human genome to other organism genomes that is used to identify conserved v. nonconserved regions and their respective contributions to developmental disease. More importantly, these phylogenetic analyses confirm not only the presence, but the precise locations of particular genes, and the individual divergence within the genes; each of these variables conforms to the progressive order of forms in the fossil record. Even those studies using only a single species rely on evolution to explain geographical diversity in the presence/absence of particular genes and mutations associated with disease and other traits. ID/creationism offers no means to predict such relationships because there is no means to predict when or where the designer/creator might choose to insert a particular gene for a particular trait. Furthermore, we have plenty of evidence of what could only be described as poor design, from the recurrent laryngeal nerve to an appendix prone to killing its host to male nip-ples, etc. What, pray tell, is the ID/creationist explanation for a defunct human gene for egg-yolk proteins residing within a placental mammal genome and why does this defunct gene map to the development of placental gestation in other forms and why does this mapping further align with the evolutionary lineages found in the fossil record?
“Combinatorial chemistry was pre-existing, and drug targeting has been enhanced greatly by genetics but this is not the same as evolution . . . The field does not model itself after historical correlations.”
Modern combinatorial chemistry and other biology-based in vitro evolution is, as the latter name suggests, based on the core principles of evolution, i.e. mutation, randomness, and selection. It is well established that an evolutionary approach to, say for example receptor-binding issues (among many others) is far more “creative” and far more effective than mere ad hoc design of a given molecule. RNA aptamers are a nice example, and Szostak clearly relied on evolutionary science in both his aptamer work and his current work at elucidating putative early bioreplicators. Furthermore, while I don’t believe I ever claimed every success of genetics as pro-evolution, I would say that many are in fact pro-evolution, and those that aren’t expressly so, invariably confirm the underlying natural mechanisms which allows evolution to operate. ID/creationism still has no testable mechanisms, just claims of supernatural intervention.
“Evolution has none of these, further opinion but even biology, aside from evolutionary biology, does not integrate evolution into the models . . .”
Evolution is supported by these disciplines in their independent determinations of physical process affecting a given environment, from the distance of stars to the composition of ancient environmental conditions to the relative and absolute dating of strata and the fossils therein contained. Within biology, as previously noted, from the molecular to the organismal to the ecological levels, all relay on evolution to explain and successfully predict relationships between extant and extinct forms and their various traits. There is virtually no field in biology which isn’t directly reliant or directly influenced by evolution. Regarding “current systems” surely you’ve heard of the phylogenetic comparisons of H. sapien to H. neanderthalensis and the Denisovans. Surely you understand that comparative anatomy references both living and long dead forms. Etc, etc. Again, this sounds like the false “observational” v. “historical” dichotomy claiming that science is only reliable if it can directly observe a given event and that using the process of science in examining preserved evidence must be inherently unreliable.
“Geology and paleontology are no where near the level of the other three you mention in terms of credibility in the scientific community.”
Of course, that would be the opinion of one more familiar with those other three; but if you were searching for oil or minerals, would you ask a particle physicist or a geologist? If you were interested in understanding the flora or fauna represented in a given strata, would you ask a synthetic chemist or a paleontologist? Typical of the ID/creationist argument, here you’re suggesting that science itself is mostly unreliable and in particular, those areas of science which contradict your preferred religious-based narratives are effectively worthless (despite their validated applications in the real world).
“Of course life changes after creation this is not surprising at all . . . The Cambrian explosion doesn't really make sense in the current evolutionary model either, or at least so is my opinion of the matter.”
Following along a standard creationist list of talking points, you are making claims of some vast conspiracy solely to support evolution, while ignoring that the underlying science is validated in applications with no direct ties to evolution. I have no idea what you’re referring to with respect to “reclassification” but it’s well understood that not all species are subject to the same pressures to adapt and evolve, and as such, we expect to see forms in otherwise stable environments/niches displaying little change. But, and it’s a big but, we nonetheless see a progression of forms changing in the fossil record; a progression which is corroborated by the relative phylogenetic distances observed in extant forms. When you say “Cambrian explosion” I’m sure you are thinking of the tens of millions of years that all the available evidence indicates was the time span for this “explosion.” I’m certain you’re also considering the multiple observations of species radiations in extant forms, e.g. cichlid fishes.
“When DNA was first announced, the mainstream view was that it was absolutely wrong, it took time for the scientific community to assimilate the idea and during the meantime there were many disagreements . . . Disagreement at large is part of the nature of scientific study and reform.”
I’m well aware of the history of DNA, from Miescher to Avery, MacLeod & McCarty to Hershey & Chase right up through Franklin, Watson and Crick. By my count, about 35 years from the first proposal to confirmation that DNA was in fact the hereditary material. During that time, there was some disagreement, but as technology improved and experiments were devised and replicated, the contrarians were overwhelmed with empirical physical evidence. Similarly, from Lamarck to Darwin & Wallace to E.O. Wilson to Gould and beyond, evolution has been refined. But the underlying proposition that organisms change and that this change can acc-umulate to produce higher level divergence has been tested, and retested, and retested. With every phylogenetic analysis, with every fossil dig, etc, the opportunity for ID/creationists to point to some truly confounding observation exists. But such an observation simply has not been forthcoming. I don’t think I need to cite the statistics of scientists practicing in the relevant fields to underscore that there is no disagreement about whether or not evolution took place. The disagreement invariably comes from an ill-informed public and a tiny minority of scientists who base their objections principally upon religious belief. Yes, disagreement will always exist when the proposition is relatively new, but evolution is no longer new and the concordant body of evidence from every relevant discipline supports evolution as the source of observable extant and extinct biodiversity. ID/creationism offers no positive supporting evidence, just a litany of arguments of incredulity such as those you have presented.
“To say Lenski’s E. coli is adding new information is untrue in the case of genes, no new genetic information has been created only remixed to more appropriate adaptations.”
Lenski’s E. coli and their novel biochemical pathway was the result of gene duplications (i.e. more genes) and mutation of these duplicated genes (i.e. new genetic information). Lenski’s E. coli demonstrated a purely natural mechanism producing a “new functionality” via “new genes.” Together, they produced a “non-E. coli” phenotype. The ID/creationist argument of “its still just a bacterium” ignores that: 1) ID/creationists have long argued that such evolution of “new genes” is impossible; and 2) ID/creationists can point to absolutely zero mechanisms which necessarily constrain an organism’s ability to acc-umulate such novel traits. Such arguments are akin to suggesting inches don’t exist, but even if they did, they couldn’t possibly add up to miles.
“Well thats simple enough to answer, I wouldnt want to tell a close personal family member hey I think you might not have actually existed, cuz these guys doubt it.”
I suspect you can actually see, hear and touch your close personal friend. Furthermore, I suspect that anybody else could do the same. I would also suspect that there would be an incredible body of physical evidence that could show your friend exists. This analogy simply doesn’t apply. Perhaps I’m wrong in your “confidence” statement, but it still appears that you are unwilling to expressly concede that your particular deity belief could be wrong.
I don’t take anything you say personally, and I hope that you understand my responses are not intended to attack you personally. I do, however, take objection to your underlying premise that science must be unreliable, but only where it appears to conflict with an a priori religious belief. Accompanying this premise is that there must be some concerted effort spread across all of the relevant fields to intentionally falsify data and misrepresent the evidence. In the pursuit of answering “why” we’re here, it’s disingenuous to selectively reject the science that explains “how” just because your personal theology finds it incongruent.
You claimed: "If the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet with the current surface water."
Please define "flat" and cite your evidence.
Otherwise you are a little retard.
Yeah, the minute it's personal, they run back to science. Ah, the hypocritical christian mind.
yeah Redzoa, except for a little inconvenient truth we now know about called neutrinos and the fact that these pesky little subatomic particles throw a huge monkey wrench in your radiometric dating methods. Well now, decays rates are absolutely not steady at all are they? Due to the fact that solar flares, coronal ejections occur much more frequently than known previously, the affects of accelerated decay rates are supersized beyond the normal steady stream of neutrinos in cosmic rays. As i stated previously one should not try to use radiometric dating methods, radiocarbon dating in the preposterous myths of evolution and an earth billions and billions of years old. It simply won't work.
Furthermore, as I noted above, the progressive order of the fossil record does not rely on radiometric dating per se. The order is relative to strata independent of absolute dating methods. The observation of forms with similar density and occupying the same niche/geographical distribution, yet separated by many, many layers of strata confound the myth that these forms all coexisted and were all drowned and buried in one single event.
You're very fond of saying such-and-such 'confounds' one belief or so-and-so does not confound your beliefs. However neither is ever factual or true. and should not be mixed in with any scientific findings.
Reviewing these instances, there is basically no relationship to 'confounding' by any of the parties. Why try to heat the conversation up with that?
Aside from dissonant wordplay; the fossil record does not rely on radiometric dating.. true. The fossil records try instead to uphold beliefs formed from a single man's logic in the 1800s who explicitly formed the logic on the basis of personally disliking this very flood we're discussing; or so is his own account.
Since that system gained momentum, corrections are always made to fit in that model, assuming it as logical without any particular proof that conditions have not been uniform over such a vast period of time.
Regardless of any global flood, the dating schema used in archeology is why the field lacks much support from other scientific communities.
To say nothing has ever been found out of order in the fossil record is only to say that species are classified by their place in the fossil record, regardless of physical similarities.
It is well known that we almost never good genetic information available in 'old' fossils and do not use physical characteristics to classify them as they're not reliable. They classify species based on the column so you can't use classification to define it.
Archaeologists use heuristics to define the column. They have since the 1800s and it is nothing but heuristics that attempts to prove the original heuristics.
Where does the absurdity end?
Now scientists are trying to uphold one person's idea? So when evidence points one way, they just ignor it just to "uphold" this guys hate for an imaginary boat? Wow!!!
Oh and archeology is not viewed as a real science by other sciences? Bahahahaha!!!!
You guys are to funny!!!
"Where does the absurdity end? Now scientists are trying to uphold one person’s idea? So when evidence points one way, they just ignor it just to “uphold” this guys hate for an imaginary boat? Wow!!!"
Right... so you don't think religious groups form around a set of ideas and have large structures of people that credit each other to gain validity and momentum? That sort of action never happens among humans en mass?
To answer your first question: I don't decide that for you.
To answer you second: Grammar aside, yes, that man is named Charles Lyell.
To answer your third: no, evidence has little to do with orthodoxy and there's no need to explain orthodoxy with some grand conspiracy idea like you keep suggesting.
Little has changed since Lyell came up with his quack ideas. This has nothing to do with young/old earth bologna debates aside from Lyell's particular biases. The main issue is that even when new findings could agree with other -real- sciences, archaeologists must make sure they don't lose tenure or involved in the huge array of political and social issues for some reason tied to the field.
Don't you folks read about subjects before making all these claims? Misinformation is so awful. Have you not met archaeologists that are bothered by these facts? They're not tied to one single group like theologically driven ones.
Well, in any case, I'm hardly the first to assert that archeology isn't even a soft science, much less a pure one. That is almost never contested. Its just a field that -uses- science and technology; there are no controls, no experiments and no objective accountability – just social and occupational pressure.
Not everyone may agree with me that only pure sciences are science, which excludes fields like engineering. Doesn't matter, any field whose basis is heuristically designed like archeology is not science, by that logic financial analysis would be a science. (by the way, it isn't)
Evolutionists are desperate. Just recently they announced a Norwegian Spruce to be close to 10 thousand years old. How did they come to this conclusion? Did they cut it down and count the tree rings? (which by the way would not be conclusive anyway since growth cycles are not hard-coded to calendar years) No, they used radiocarbon dating on the 'older' roots to 'prove' the age. Even a tree ring expert in Arizona stated this date to be 'a little early'. Gee ya think? The evolutionist vein of the scientific community is still in denial concerning the fatal blow neutrinos have dealt to radiometric dating and continue to perpetuate their myth. So guess what, the supposedly ancient Norwegian Spruce is back to being only 1-2 thousand years old!
Please provide references to your claim.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:1-28
Exactly, but I'm sure a certain person will disagree with you and tell you to go get help, that's all they can stoop to when they are wrong or disagree.
People have been asking that for over 2,000 years! Jesus supposedly told his disciples that they would see the end of time before their time had come, and here we are 2,000 years later!
Nobody is denying that the bible mentions the flood, I am stating based on all the evidenced acquired thus far, that the bible is WRONG! That there was in fact NO flood, and no matter how many times that books says so, unless you have evidence from OUSIDE the bible, it won't change reality.
Using your bible as the source of evidence, is NOT permissible in debates, as you canNOT use the same book in dispute as evidence. You therefore, need to find outside evidence for your claims, NOT the bible.
The reason for this is that if you use the book in question as evidence, you have no way to verify the facts. Example, the quran claims that mohammed split the moon in half. Should I believe it? HELL NO. Why not? Because there is NO evidence OUTSIDE the quran that shows that the moon was ever split in half. The quran states that an entire town saw it, yet guess what? We have NO WRITINGS from anyone of such and event and we have been to the moon and have seen nothing to that effect.
This is the EXACT problem you have. You have ONE book that makes a claim, yet there is NO evidence for that event, no matter were we look.
The bible, like the quran, is an ancient book written by people selling a religion and you all have bought into all the false promises.
Now get me EVIDENCE that the flood happened, otherwise you LOOSE.
Ben, please explain to Dorian the the fossilized sea shells found in mountains thousands of feet above sea level. Evidently he hasn't heard.
Dorian, do you actually understand what de-normalizing means or is it that you simply like to scoff before reading more than a paragraph? I honestly can't tell which it is.
Ok, well either way.. the surface of a perfect sphere is completely normalized. When you de-normalize it, you get features such as the continents. Depending on the amount of de-normalization that's occurred you have different degrees of contrast in elevation.
However high elevation had peaked at any given time one decides to check the biblical account of the flood matters since it was said to be over the highest peak. With the current mountain ranges that would make much less physical sense than the mountain ranges of the past. Either way it is still fairly speculative, and I didn't argue that one bit.
Simply it is mathematically possible with the matter currently on Earth to arrange it in such a way as to flood the whole surface and depending on how much such a flood would change the landscape, one can uncover to what degree that potential is probable.
You can play with all types of scenarios in your head, it doesn't mean that they ever happened or could have happened. Geologists have mapped the earth from billions of years ago till now, and your scenario is nowhere to be found.
You can normalize all you want, but the amount of water on earth now, although less than what it was billions of years ago, is exactly as it was 10,000 years ago.
Like I said, mountains down pop into existence overnight and water doesn't either nor retreat for that matter.
It's just insane talking about this, as it's akin of talking about a flat earth.
No one's talking about mountains popping into existence, where do you get that? Also not talking about a flat earth,... again. I'm not saying any process changed the Earth from a normalized sphere into the current land.
However, the shallower the oceans are and the shorter the mountains are, the less water you need for a flood. Without relying on the water in the mantle, you've got roughly 8000 ft of elevation to play with in that range to have normal old mountains, with the water in the mantle you've got quite a bit more – enough to make completely valid mappings in shorter time spans.
This is the same process of mathematics used by geologists. They have a particular goal in mind when they calculate for those years. If you truly were capable of unbias consideration and solid research, you'd be able to observe that there are many potential simulations that can arrive at the same models.
Perhaps I am insane for trying to point out -again- I never suggested the earth was that flat.
I suppose it may be easier to forget than accept you've now started making up points to argue with on your own.
Sr. the tallest mountains on this planet are over 30k feet in height. If you melt all the ice on the planet, the water level will go up by only 300 feet.
You need to understand that as you move upwards away from the surface of the earth, you have to account for the exponentially increasing volume. All the water on this planet, no matter where would not account for nothing more than 400 feet above sea level.
Your crazy equations are talking about 8000 feet! Do the math!
Mountain growth –
Let's say that the tallest peaks that you are talking about are then 300 feet in height, that would put your equation at 29,700 feet of mountain build up in 10,000 years. That is about 3 feet per year. The fastest growing mountains today grow at 2 inches a year.
This mountains didn't start at sea level either, they used to be at depth of thousands of feet under sea level as they used to be the bottom of the oceans. That means that they had to grow from under sea level, to sea level and then upwards.
So yes, having mountains grow at 3 feet a year is like watching them grow like pop corn.
Unbiased? No, I'm just not delusional.
For one, the model I'm suggesting is only a potential – not a view.
For another, the tallest mountains at the time could well be in the neighborhood of 10,000 feet, not 300.
Yet another, in said model, many of the current mountains would pre-exist, having already formed to a point well above sea level.
Some of the faster periods of growth could be accounted for by the flooding itself.
Some of the growth could further be accounted for by higher volcanic activity then than now, which is sensible considering that magma flows slow down over time and any great turbulence within, once expelled, would subsequently cause calmer global seismic activity following.
Similar to the many possible explanations of dinosaur extinction often given, a number of unaccounted for forces could have exerted themselves.
Even in the case of an Earth of billions of years old, there is nothing precluding such a flood from having ever happened.
Apparently some of today's landforms can grow at a rate of 60-70 feet immediately during an earthquake, as per the island I just linked.
Often in geology, there are corrective disasters to explain away potential consistency issues, and not only on small scales. If you take the same logic used to 'validate' the rate of sediment layers from 150 years ago, which is still currently used in geology, to try and prove anything you can always correct for the desired starting and ending point
That's exactly how earth sciences work right now to affirm theories.of past geological formations. Even if you don't see it, you're experiencing the exact same frustrations I have with the geology and paleontology communities.
No current viewpoint comes even close to producing proper computer simulations reversing current processes objectively to truly discover anything of value. We only have a soup of easily modified theories that can go one way or another based on unknown natural factors. We don't have proofs in supposed earth science, we have guesses that all require massive and numerous corrections, leeway, accepted error and circular logic to rely on.
I don't claim to believe what I'm proposing, and I don't. I simply entertain any mathematical model and merely discuss that it's a potential because that can actually lead to a finding.
You however believe the ridiculous current accepted figures mankind constantly has to adjust to keep up with their mistakes. Not delusional? eeeeh... seems fishy.
Real scientists have more skepticism than that at least while maintaining an open view of the most extreme potentials. That's how things are discovered.
But then we're all human, I have plenty of biases, which is why I prefer to think of some scenarios rather than others.
Still, I really doubt you understand what we're actually discussing at this point – you seem to constantly think I'm all hey the earth was flat and it is super young and there's a giant sea turtle when you fall off the side.
Err, btw the highest elevation on earth is less than 30k feet above sea level.
Eh go figure, if you did want to talk about mountains appearing out of nowhere, here's a ice 50+ footer that was in the media for a while.
Still pretty confused what that has to do with anything, but hey, there ya go.
How exactly do you compare ice with rock?
I'm sure you are not a geologist, so why do you go against all the world's geologists?
When you have health issues, do you listen to a mechanic or to a doctor?
I just don't get it, how do you even fathom people taking you seriously? You are not a geologist.
Who says I need anyone to take me seriously?
Are you a geologist?
Why should I trust geology, a field which adjusts itself with historically low accuracy and has a high degree of disagreement and political issues?
When I have health issues, I don't listen to only one source of information.
ice is a typo =] it was meant "nice", "a nice 50+ footer" it's an island that popped up.
also, i don't 'go against all the worlds geologist'
You don't? What geologist thinks Noah's flood was real or that the earth is 10K y/o?
Well now, I've only been going on about models which have room for a world-wide flood, not my own belief.
Aside from that, I don't believe the earth is 10k years old.
However since you seem to be asking if there's a cross-section of creationists and geologists, there is.
The most prominent one I know of I've only learned of recently however while sorting through creationist and evolutionist material due to this blog lol. That would be steve austin. I think there's probably more than two amongst the 7 billion folks around the planet though.
That guy has been debunked many of times.
Well when people say debunked in this context, self included, it is pretty subjective so I don't really think one way or another about it.
I recall skeptoid.com/episodes/4146 had a good article about the bias of community vs community situation. They're certainly not creationists yet they concede he's not just up to quackery but trying to defend his view with reasonable science and getting heat for going against the grain, but they also believe he's dramatizing things where he can.
Mainly though, citing him is not to say I put stock in his accounts any more than other geologists or that he and I share views. Simply, you asked:
"What geologist thinks Noah's flood was real or that the earth is 10K y/o?"
and that one does. meanwhile, i have not reached a conclusion myself.
So one geologist, who has been shown to be in error (if you read the article), and who has no evidence to show for, out of thousands is something worth considering?
How do you defend that position?
I'm not trying to argue from authority, but if one scientist with an agenda, tells me that I have cancer, while all the tests and thousands of other scientists say I don't.
I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.
A scientist without an agenda? I think that's even rarer than a geologist who's a creationist.
Someone worth considering? You asked for it not I, I have no need to defend myself from such things.
As opposed to scientific study, where you ask if something exists and find out whether or not it does – you ask if something exists and then discount it upon finding.
You go ahead and try very hard to self-validate, if that helps you sleep better than more power to ya.
Can you show me where I denied he existed? I gave you a link to direct evidence that his numbers are WRONG and everyone using his numbers are WRONG.
Scientist fight each other in the quest to prove each other WRONG. That is how REAL science and TRUTH is reached. Wether they have an agenda or not (which I wouldn't see any other agenda, then the defense of their hypothesis), the truth would be found and the evidence would be the only thing that keeps the last man standing.
So you have a geologist that has NO evidence and has a preconceived agenda to prove his book. If you consider that compelling, then more power to ya.
I wouldn't doubt if the guy works for an ID organization. Good luck to him finding credible evidence! LMAO!
You're still talking about the guy's credence and your opinions, but you're the only one concerned with it.
I only showed you that I answered you questions, you keep assuming his work is somehow important to me or something.
Ok, so you showed me one as I asked, but his been discredited. So then what?
Maybe my question should have been "show me an archeologist that has a working theory on the subject".
Maybe it should have been.
If so, you're just going on to yourself with a little internet power trip. I never brought up the topic of either creationism or young earth but you constantly try to fit the conversation into such a mold.
further that questions is a personal issue and far too subjective. obviously you will count whoever you want as discredited for whatever reasons you like whether they're proven or not.
every scientists has had failures, that's part of the process and when you say that guy's been discredited, then non-creationist geologists disagree with you about Steve, who's also be 'proven' to use sound theory.
Sure, skeptoid found him to be over-dramatic and bias, but you just ignore the rest of the article that doesn't suit your opinion.
In the end, it only matters what dogma you support as to who you find credible. I don't support either and I'll continue to research the opinion of more than just this two-sided debate of creationism vs evolution.
Obviously, you rely on non-scientific opinions about things, except perhaps, if you are diagnosed with cancer. Then, I'll bet, you'd go running to a person with valid scientific credentials for answers instead of someone with a degree issued from a PO Box in Florida proposing a "model" on how you could be cured by prayer – if you just send them $25 for a holistic bracelet blessed by a minister of god.
Obviously not actually. i,e it is observable by anyone competent enough in the mathematics of manifolds or folks that what i'm discussing is a perfectly fine potential and that you snub you're nose at anything you deem to come from a creationist point of view. oh but i am certainly a theist, so you can complain with at least some validity if you start on about that.
i take it you don't enjoy things such as code golf, i wonder if that's true.
honestly when i first posted on these forums, I really thought I'd find more bias out of the christian community. What was I thinking? they have morales! should've known.
Perhaps I should make a graph demonstrating the bias over time expressed by the trollathon aetheists are having on a religious belief blog to demonstrate the various levels of textbook delusional behavior, since it's such a favorite term for them.
oh wait wait, i know! i bet pretty soon i should "go get help", but alas you guys really do need it. like.. i am saying it kinda snide still, but you actually -DO- need help with your delusional and disruptive behavior. it's not healthy for ur noggin.
lucky for others in the atheist camp, i don't take folks like you or dorian for much of a qualified data sample. you're a very poor representation. i've had better debates with a.i. programs.
i for one am glad you disagree with me, based on the stellar logic you trend towards in your other conversations.
Some creationist d!ckhead named Snelling does. Sometimes.
"Dorian" stated the following:
"Geologists have mapped the earth from billions of years ago till now, and your scenario is nowhere to be found."
you can't be serious can you? earth mapping technology has only been around for a few years now. sir, you really need to check yourself in.
Reblogged this on The Atheist .
There is no evidence for a global flood or Noah's Ark. Grow up people and step out of the delusion. You'll feel much better, I promise.
research before you comment please. There is evidence of a great flood, in the black sea. Here's a link to ONE of the articles I've found on it over the years.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.