Ed

Actually I had already heard most of their arguments long before.

Quote:

duv: I've just read about a fossil claimed to date back to something like 1,200,000,000 years!!! It's not just any old fossil but a series of worm casts. The implication is that a relitivly complex, multi-celluar organism was thriving WAY earlier than thought. This has yet to be confirmed. So, let the games begin! Everybody's gonna want a piece of this one and there's no doubt that it'll be scrutinized like a cute candy-striper at the VA Hospital. What is truly marvelous about all this is that the people who will work the hardest to debunk the age of the fossil are the ones that want most for it to be genuine. Does that sound like a contradiction? It is not. The fossil is important only for the information it contains and the evolutionary predictions it supports. Misinformation is the bane of science. So, let us speculate (Yikes! The "S" word!). If the fossil is genuine, it seens unlikely that this is the only complex species of the time. Not only that, but all of the then existing species need not be 'worms'. Furthermore, what of the huge gap between the currently oldest known, complex species and this possibly, truly ancient worm? What organisms might have existed then and under what conditions? Stay tuned, folks. This should be a good one!

Yes, if it is genuine it takes a big chunk of the magical entity of Time from the evolutionist and makes it even less likely that such a complex organism could evolve in such a short amount of time.

Quote:

duv: Ok, how 'bout the Global Flood? There ain't no such animal, never has been!

How do you know? Are you omniscient? Or are you a time traveler?

Quote:

duv: Look, if there EVER had been such an event, it would show up in the Geological Column like a rat turd in the sugar. Indeed, I'd love for such evidence to turn up. Those sediments would be incredable! Can you imagine the diversity of remains that would be present?

Not if it only lasted a year out of 4.6 billion.

[b] Actually my screensaver is Hubble photos. They are incredibly beautiful. My response is the oppposite of yours, ie How could such things come into existence by impersonal chance processes? If there is no God why are they beautiful? Only minds recognize and create beauty so impersonal chance processes cannot logically produce beauty.

mfaber

While I realize that Ed's remark occurred sometime earlier in this thread, I couldn't resist posting the following......

PULEEZE! Where is the hard evidence that what is recorded in the Torah is true!. By your kind of "evidence", you should also believe that Zeus and Olympian Co. were also real because they are mentioned in the Iliad.

Moses and the Exodus are myths just like the <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm" target="_blank">Flood story (Gilgamesh Revisitied).</a>

Furthermore, the story of Moses is just a knock-off version of <a href="http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/moses.html" target="_blank">legend of Sargon</a>. Pointing out that the Moses story is not an EXACT copy would just be a diversion on your part (I noticed you used that tactic to try to explain away the striking resemblance of the Epic of Gilgamesh to the Flood story earlier)

First of all, the Bible gives contradictory dates for Exodus. Calculating the date from Solomons reign and his construction of the Temple in I Kings gives a date for Exodus of 1447 BCE. However, if one uses the chronology of Judges we have a period of 610-650 years between the Exodus (1577 - 1617 BCE) and the building of the temple. This obviously does not square with the 480 years(Exodus 1447 BCE) given in I Kings 6:1.

The Biblical "History" Contradicts the Archeological Record (just a few of the many contradictions that should make one doubt the veracity of the Exodus story)

1) Ex. 1:11 specifically mentions the Israelites being used as slave labor to build the city of Raamses. But, the first Pharaoh named Raamses came to the throne in 1320 BCE. Egyptian records state Raamses II, who ruled 1279-1213 BCE built the city of Raamses. How is this possible when the Isrealites were supposed to have left at least 120 years beforehand (using the 1447 BCE Exodus date, the most commonly accepted one)?

2) The Exodus writer gives no name of any Pharaoh at the alleged time of Joseph or Moses. The Exodus author’s avoidance of king/pharaoh names suggests the objective is something less then an accounting of datable, historical fact. A very strange omission....

3) There is absolutely no mention of Joseph, the 7-year famine, the plagues, the Israelites, or the drowning of Pharoah's (which one?) army in any Egyptian records covering the time that they were alleged to have been there. I don'think the Egyptians would have missed catatrophes like the Nile turning to blood, burning hail, the death of the first, the parting of the Red Sea, the drowning of Pharoah's (who?) army, etc.

4) The Merneptah stele (upright stone slab) dated 1207 BCE is the first mention of "Israel" found in Egypt describing Raamses II’ son, Pharaoh Merneptah’s campaign into Canaan in which a people named "Israel" got their booties kicked big time. Apart from this lone military encounter which in itself contradicts the Exodus account, it seems quite unbelievable that 2 million Israelites could be unknown to literate people who positively anal about noting all circumstances in their sphere of influence.

5) The Exodus writer is ignorant of the Egyptian forts in northern Sinai or the Egyptian strongholds in Canaan, especially in the 15th to 13th century BCE when Egypt became the dominant power of Middle East. The Israelites would have had to pass by at least one of these forts, yet there is no mention of such a thing by the Egyptians (I really think it would be hard to miss 2 million people!).

6) Exodus alleges that there were upwards of 2 million people wandering in the "wilderness" for 40 years. However, despite decades of searching the sites listed in the Bible, NOT one single, solitary, artifact has turned up! Examples:

a)Repeated surveys at Kadesh-Barnea where Israel spent 38 of its 40 years have not provided the slightest evidence of an Israelite encampment.

b)Two decades of intensive excavations at Tel Arad (Num 21:1-3) where Israel allegedly did battle with King Arad has provided no Late Bronze Age (1550-1150 BCE) remains.

c) Tel Hesbon, the site of Hesbon (Num21:21-35) where Israel allegedly did battle with the king of the Amorites provides no Bronze Age remains.

Christians try to explain away this complete and total absence of archeological data by saying that it isn't realistic to expect that archaeologists could find 3,500 Year old artifacts. However, this excuse doesn't wash when satellite imagery and ground-penetrating radar have found the most meager remains of hunter-gather societies and pastoral nomads all over the world

Like I said, this is just a few of the problems one uncovers if one examines the Biblical story. No wonder the Catholic Church refused to let the laity examine the Bible for so long! It just can bear up under any kind of close scrutiny!!!!

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]</p>

lpetrich

I wonder if Ed has ever read any of the professional literature on evolutionary biology. And I mean some primary sources like whole professional-journal articles and not creationist quote collections, with their repletion of misquotes and out-of-context quotes.

So Ed is now endorsing old-earthism?

Because there is no positive evidence for anything like Noah's Flood ever having occurred. The biggest floods there is any evidence of on Earth are some Pleistocene glacial-dam-break floods in the Columbia River Valley and the Altai Mountains. And imagine some "Noah" trying to survive that sort of flood -- he'd have to be a super whitewater rafter who can navigate currents of ~60 mph, avoiding running into some big boulders and going over some of the waterfalls along the way.

And there is evidence of similar sorts of floods on Mars that had happened in its first few billion years -- the numerous "river valleys" have similar stream shapes.

Ed jumps to the little-sediment view. Anyone willing to bet when he'll start advocating the big-sediment view again?

This view also implies that Noah's Flood had produced essentially NONE of the "fossil graveyards" that Ed has cited as evidence of Noah's Flood.

I wonder what Ed believes -- that God Almighty goes around and sculpts interstellar nebulae?

This reminds me of a view that Carl Sagan had noted had once been held -- that God has to come around and say to morning-glory flowers "Hey, flower, open!" in order to make them open.

Esthetic judgments may be side effects of instinctual mechanisms for recognizing desirable surroundings and entities (food, sex partners, etc.). However, untangling instinctual and learned behavior can be extremely difficult.

And even if such features were designed for our convenience, one ought not to jump to conclusions about the designer(s). For example, the designers could be a community of elves and fairies and the like.

Duvenoy

"And even if such features were designed for our convenience, one ought not to jump to conclusions about the designer(s). For example, the designers could be a community of elves and fairies and the like."


At last!! We almost agree!



doov

Ed

Not necessarily, a one year long event in a geologic column of 4 billion years may not show up that obvious.

Quote:

duv: What would that sediment be like? (speculation) I think that it would be quite thick as the surface of the earth became mixed. Mixing would have been natural as these would not have been calm waters (which begs the question of how did Noah keep the ark from broaching? Did he throw out a drogue and hope for the best, what?). Weather patterns all over the world would have been upset and the ark would have had a very rough ride. Everybody aboard would have spent a lot of time puking.

Actually after some initial roughness the waters probably would not be much rougher than modern oceans.

Quote:

duv: The sediments would be fantastic! The diversity of remains, immense! As the animals and people (same thing) that died did so in roiled water, there’s an excellent chance that many of their corpses would have been buried in the sediment. Now then, I’ve read on some creationist sites that even the dinosaurs were aboard the ark. This is nonsense of course, but according to the official story, such diverse animals as the pangolin (an anteater), the kiwi (a worm eater) and rattlesnakes (rodent and rabbit eaters) were comfortably stowed aboard . Not to mention elephants, heffilumps, and jabberwoks. Man, we’re talking a LOT of animals, here! Therefore, as the number of species is huge, the record in the flood sediments must show most if not all them, including Homo sapiens. The conditions for preservation and fossilization could not have been better.

Actually it depends on which flood theory you accept. I lean toward the old earth flood theory, so it would have occurred aproximately 2 million years ago and therefore not as many species as you mention would have been on the ark.

[b] No, with pseudogenes and what we presently call junk DNA at that time probably being fully functional that gives plenty of diversity in the genetic makeup of most animals and humans for there not to be any inbreeding.

lpetrich

(Duvenoy on Noah's Flood being glaringly obvious...)
Ed:
... a one year long event in a geologic column of 4 billion years may not show up that obvious.

Ed's still advocating the little-sediment version of Noah's Flood, I see. Meaning that fossil graveyards are not evidence for Noah's Flood.

(Noah's Flood being rough waters...)
Ed:
Actually after some initial roughness the waters probably would not be much rougher than modern oceans.

But the water has to be *always* smooth enough to allow the Ark to stay intact.

Ed:
... I lean toward the old earth flood theory, so it would have occurred aproximately 2 million years ago and therefore not as many species as you mention would have been on the ark.

2 million years ago is not much by geological standards; there would still have been about as many species as today, and very similar higher-level diversity. And humanity's ancestors back then were the likes of Australopithecus africanus and Homo habilis, which had almost-simian brain sizes though they were well-adapted to walking upright.

Ed:
No, with pseudogenes and what we presently call junk DNA at that time probably being fully functional that gives plenty of diversity in the genetic makeup of most animals and humans for there not to be any inbreeding.

And how is that functionality supposed to be evident? Much "junk DNA" is just plain genetic nonsense.

Ed

Actually since the flood was of such short duration its evidence would probably appear to be
local flood evidence especially if it occured 2 million years ago.

Lizard

Ed wrote:
Um, Ed, if Moses wrote the Torah, then how was he able to describe his own death?

Did he call Miss Cleo on the Psychic Hotline, or what?

Moses is thought to have actually existed, but the Torah is not evidence that he did. All we know from the Torah is that somebody wrote the Torah. See?

lpetrich

Ed has been advocating the little-sediment view of Noah's Flood for the last 3 days or so. Any bets on how long he'll continue with that?

Duvenoy

(Noah's Flood being rough waters...)
Ed:
"Actually after some initial roughness the waters probably would not be much rougher than modern oceans."


Ed, you have obviously never been to sea. I have. A lot, back when we were all making the world safe for democratcy, I spent a lot of years at it. If you'd ever ridden out a gale in the North Atlantic or a Carribean hurricane, or even just cruised along when it was a bit choppy, you'd never consider making such a asinine statment.

The sea is not a friendly place. Noah's ark as described would have been soggy kindling before the sun set on the first day.

Yeesh!

doov