Vinnie

So then they know of this recent scientific trend?


Yeah but I thought the reason was that he had a lot of material to say in only a short time period. One to two hours on the turning of modern science is hardly enough time don't you think? Now if this ad hominem is laid to rest we can move on.

Argument by assertion. Feel free to present some of his outdated info and unsubstantiated claims.

So your plan would be to make the children listen to only things which you agree with?

And they once held a Newtonian view of the universe until Guth's theory of special relativity overthrew it. New evidence comes in and we reformulate our views. QM was like pulling teeth for Alfred Einstein. And the "majority" means that there are some serious scientists who hold out as well. As I said, a shift is just beginning. In five or ten years this will be common knowledge. Cutting edge research takes time to filter down to smaller universities and even longer to reach the general public.

Vinnie

Vinnie

And where can I see the results of the poll which asked all the world's scientists whether or not they accept the genesis flood?

Vinnie

Mageth

Will you people please stop trying to asume to know the mind of God e.g. his reasons and motivations for doing what he does. You can't even know my mind.

Well, at least you have one. And who's trying to "know the mind of god?" We're talking about the biblical flood myth, not understanding the mind of god.

Have you ever tried to understand how the Noah story can be possible.

Yup. And it's not. Further, there's no geological or any other kind of physical evidence to indicate that such a flood ever occurred, and no theory that shows how such a flood would be possible (there just isn't enough water).

Here is some of what I found out through researching the subject:

Looks like you need to extend your research to real science sources instead of just creationist pseudoscientific sources.

1. The arc was the size of about three football fields (Measurements can be found in the bible) More than enough room for animals, suppplies and Noah's family.

Well, that's definitely a big assumption. In the first place, building a wooden boat that large that could survive a year of storms and sea is not feasible. It's an impossible engineering feat. And how could eight people care for all those animals night and day for a year?

2. Noah did not have to take every type of animal (Parrot and sparrow, and hawk, and etc.) he only needed their KIND.

OK: define KIND. It's not a scientific word I'm familiar with. Are you saying that parrots, sparrows, and hawks are all the same "kind"? In Biology, it goes:

Kingdom=Animalia
Phylum=Vertebrata
Class=Aves

Nothing about "kind" there.

Biology tells us that a DNA strand carries all the information nessasary for variations to occur within a kind.

Umm, that's not in any biology source I've ever read. None of them say anything at all about this "kind" concept.

We see this everyday with selective breeding.

OK, I'd like to see you selectively breed two "primitive" birds and produce a sparrow, a hawk and a parrot. Better yet, start with two dinosaurs and selectively breed a bird. Or how about two reptiles and selectively breed a dinosaur. Or two fish and selectively breed an amphibian.

Damn, that's a pretty good parallel to what evolution does! Except there's no external selective breeder other than the environment and its selection pressures.

Do you know how many different species of birds there are today? I would guess, say, 10,000. So you're proposing that all 10,000 of those diverse species, from hummingbird to ostrich, from penguin to condor, diversified from one pair of birds on the ark in about 4000 years? Incredible.

Also, in the time since the flood their has been enough time to attribute for the variety we see today.

Assuming it's 4000 years, not. You do realize that you're saying all the diversity of life we see today, I believe an estimated 1.5 million or so distinct species, would have to have evolved from a few kinds in only 4000 years. That's way beyond any rate that scientific evolutionary theory proposes. Creationists sometimes claim that 3.5 billion years is not enough to account for the diversity we see on earth.

3. Forget about the Epic of Gilgamesh, which people say the flood story originated from. It is much more likely that the Gilgamesh Epic and the Noah Flood were derived from the same event. The Summarians, probably thru oral transmission, most likely modified the original account (found in the bible) by intermingling their mythology into the story.

Umm, the recorded Sumerian account predates the recorded Biblical account by quite a bit. So you'd appear to have it backwards - the Hebrews may have adapted the pre-existing Sumerian account into their mythology (e.g. during the captivity in Babylon).

The reason I think this is because of the numerous flood myths from around the world. Are they all a version of the Gilgamesh epic or more plausible narratives of a single event passed on throughout the ages until the stories hardly resemble eachother.

Well, many of them may be myths adapted from other or older cultures, but they are diverse and different enough that many of them may well have originated from different local flood events, or not from a single flood but from recurring, seasonal floods (as is seen on the Nile and other great rivers). Floods occur all over the world, can be spectacular events, and so it's not surprising that a variety of the world's cultures, from Africa, to Asia, to the Americas, developed myths around floods.

Mageth

You have not demonstrated that it is a myth. You have supernaturally read the minds of ancient writers and presumed to dictate what their thoughts actually were without any good evidence. Hermeneutic of faith, anyone?

It didn't happen in the real world, therefore it's a myth. It's that simple. Get over it. Myths aren't bad things, they're good actually, until people start taking them as real history, for which they were nver intended.

Do you actually have any positive evidence which demonstrates that the genesis flood did not happen?

Hold on, there, pardner! You couldn't have gotten things more ass-backwards if you tried!

I'll demonstrate the silliness of this to you: do you have any positive evidence that the events depicted in the Book of Mormon did not happen? If so, must you interpret them as real history and not as myth?

The problem is there's no scientific evidence that the Genesis flood did happen. It's up to your side to provide evidence that it did. Until then, it remains a myth.

(But there is "positive" evidence, such as the continuous, documented existence of whole civilizations in the old and new world that extend through the supposed time period of the biblical flood without interruption, and without noticing or recording all that water rising around their ankles).

Kosh

Vinnie

Your fanship of Hovind surprises me, since I know you are much more reasonable at seeing through the BS than that.

I don't have time to look up any references for you (taking the whole team at work out to see the Matrix Reloaded, and discuss Des Cartism over beers!).

But if you'll go search the Evo/Cre forum for "Hovind", you'll find threads discussing his recent criminal/con man activities and his problems with the law.

Also, search Yahoo for "Kent Hovind", and you'll find one great page discussing the truth about his past, including a picture of "Patriot University", the source of his "degrees". It's a small tri-level house in a suburb of Colorado Springs....

openeyes

I'm thinking most true scientists would be almost insulted if they were asked. I couldn't find any stats on whether they believed in the flood, but I did find one HERE that discusses a belief in a diety in general. Since less than half said they believed in god, those in life sciences way under 10%, I'd say not many see Noah's flood as fact.

I wonder what kids like you plan to study and do with your lives. Anything deeply scientific seems out of the question. That leaves many careers open, but is very limiting nonetheless.

I'm not saying you can't believe in a god if it's comforting to you, just don't use this belief to try to muck up science for others like Hovind and his ilk are trying to do.

Mageth

The similarities given the large number of them, may in fact point to a historical core.

Yes, to floods, maybe one big local flood, more than likely many different floods. American cultures had flood myths too, I believe, so the chance of the Sumerian/Biblical and American myths having disseminated from the same source is slim. Floods are similar, you know, and surviving one typically requires one to get in some sort of boat or other.

I find it amazing that you know the intents and motivations of an author thousands of years ago of whom we know virtually nothing about. What proof can you offer for your statement that the Genesis flood or any other flood account was meant, by its originator to be taken as myth rather than history?

Well, what proof can you offer for claiming they thought they were recording actual history? The sword cuts both way.

I give the originators the benefit of the doubt in regards to their intelligence, and allow that they were probably smart enough to know they were making up the myths, or recording mythical accounts, rather than recording actual history. Myths of all sorts were dreamed up, and many recorded, in virtually every culture. Generally, the myth-creators are not assumed to have been recording actual history, or to have been thinking they were recording actual history.

What can't a myth have a historical core?

Well, they can, e.g. be based on historical floods. But that doesn't mean they're intended to record actual history. Rather, a mythologized accounting of human experience, intended to teach, instruct, illuminate, explain. Fantastical, mythical, poetical bits added for embellishment, for illustration, for teaching and explanatory purposes.

M-W defines a myth as " a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon".

Wow. I wrote what I said above before reading this. M-W seems to agree with me.

I do not see how this negates the possible historicity of the traditional story. The mythical story could be true.

A myth may be originally true, or partly true or based on real events, or totally made up. The flood myths are exemplary of myths that may be based on real events (i.e. a local flood or floods). That doesn't mean the way the myth recounts those events can be taken as real history. Myths are typically expanded to include non-historical, poetic elements that aren't intended as history. The myths that grew up around George Washington are a good example - yet many people believe some of the myths about 'ole George.

But there isgrowing evidence for a yound earth which confirms the Genesis cosmology directly and the flood account indirectly (canonical dimension).

No, I've looked at that "evidence", and it's hogwash. And it's not "growing"; it's being invented, dreamed up, by pseudoscientists with an agenda.

Dr. Hovind had soime interesting things to say about the alleged reliability of calcium dating and other methods.

Dr. Hovind is not, and I repeat not, a reliable source for any sort of scientific information.

I would also state that you have no evidence against a global flood. At best you can lack belief in the event but you cannot say the biblical event did not happen.

It did not happen. There, I said it. There's tons of evidence that indicate the world and human history has proceeded over the last 10,000 years or so without the impossible-to-hide interruption of a flood of Biblical proportions. And no evidence that Noah's flood did occur. It's a myth, for Chrissakes. And it's up to you to provide evidence that it did happen.

The problem is your assumption about the author(s) original understanding of his/her/their work. How do you know that the person or persons responsible for the flood account did not think it to be literal history?

I think I addressed this. I feel confident that the originator of the biblical myth, whoever that was, didn't believe it to be literal history. People in ancient cultures developed all sorts of myths knowing they weren't literal history. They were developed for other purposes than as literal history. The problem comes later when people start turning poetry into prose.

If the earth's surface topology was different the water problem would be easily resolved. This is simple geophysics.

"Simple" geophysics with absolutely no geological evidence that it happened during the supposed period of the flood. The world's mountain ranges are tens of millions of years old, after all.

Radcliffe Emerson

I find it amazing grown men and women believe any supernatural religious bull, from any faith, especially the bible and koran.

Mageth

I find it amazing grown men and women believe any supernatural religious bull, from any faith, especially the bible and koran.

I've resigned myself to the fact that a large percentage of the population regularly have their brains fall out when bowing to the Cross or Mecca.

ex_libres

Mageth,
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Did Vennie hurt you so now you want to give me a try. It would be my pleasure seeing from what you put in your reply to my post is just as sad and weak as any of your other attempts at arguing. It seems you do more talking than listening because Vinnie’s point went right by you as anyone can see from your comments. With no further ado, lets dance.
I wrote: Have you ever tried to understand how the Noah story can be possible.

You replied: Yup. And it's not. Further, there's no geological or any other kind of physical evidence to indicate that such a flood ever occurred, and no theory that shows how such a flood would be possible (there just isn't enough water).

Rebuttal:
Wow! You got me there. I am convinced now after your wonderful display of support; charts, graphs, quotes where does it end. Oh by the way:
“There's a whole lot of water on Earth! Something like 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons (326 million trillion gallons) of the stuff (roughly 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters) can be found on our planet. This water is in a constant cycle -- it evaporates from the ocean, travels through the air, rains down on the land and then flows back to the ocean.
The oceans are huge. About 70 percent of the planet is covered in ocean, and the average depth of the ocean is several thousand feet (about 1,000 meters). Ninety-eight percent of the water on the planet is in the oceans, and therefore is unusable for drinking because of the salt. About 2 percent of the planet's water is fresh, but 1.6 percent of the planet's water is locked up in the polar ice caps and glaciers. Another 0.36 percent is found underground in aquifers and wells. Only about 0.036 percent of the planet's total water supply is found in lakes and rivers. That's still thousands of trillions of gallons, but it's a very small amount compared to all the water available.”
Source:http://www.howstuffworks.com/question157.htm
Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas
By Ben Harder
for National Geographic News
March 7, 2002


“Molten rocks deep in the earths interior may be surprisingly wet, Japanese researchers say. From lab experiments, they have concluded there may be more H2O deep underground than in all oceans, lakes, and rivers combined.”
See: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...aterworld.html

I wrote: Here is some of what I found out through researching the subject:

You wrote:Looks like you need to extend your research to real science sources instead of just creationist pseudoscientific sources.

Rebuttal:
See above. I would also like to add that the majority of research I do is from non-religious sources for the very reason you so elegantly display here. It seems that many people like you seem to think that people who believe in a creator have checked their brains in at the door. I base my beliefs in what I KNOW not what I might think is the flavor of the month like many evolutionist. Besides, how rational is it to believe everything was created from nothing, life from non-life, order from disorder (ever here of the LAW (not theory) of thermo dynamics? Source: Any science book)
I Wrote: 1. The arc was the size of about three football fields (Measurements can be found in the bible) More than enough room for animals, suppplies and Noah's family.

You Wrote: Well, that's definitely a big assumption. In the first place, building a wooden boat that large that could survive a year of storms and sea is not feasible. It's an impossible engineering feat. And how could eight people care for all those animals night and day for a year?

Rebutall: Boat building is a simple operation of mass and water displacement. You would build according to your needs. Pitch covered the outside of the arc. Repairs could have been made while at sea. We don’t know the thickness of the wood and about the shape as described in the bible; it was rectangular which has been shown to be a very effective design. For example: (Notice the size and carrying capacity)
General Characteristics, Nimitz Class
Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Va.
Power Plant: Two nuclear reactors, four shafts
Length, overall: 1,092 feet (332.85 meters)
Flight Deck Width: 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam: 134 feet (40.84 meters)
Displacement: Approx. 97,000 tons (87,996.9 metric tons) full load
Oh yeah, guess what shape this boat uses.
I wrote: 2. Noah did not have to take every type of animal (Parrot and sparrow, and hawk, and etc.) he only needed their KIND.

You wrote: OK: define KIND. It's not a scientific word I'm familiar with. Are you saying that parrots, sparrows, and hawks are all the same "kind"? In Biology, it goes:

Kingdom=Animalia
Phylum=Vertebrata
Class=Aves

Nothing about "kind" there.

Rebuttal:
I’m sorry, I guess I shouldn’t have used a word that is found in the bible in the context of which I am using it. I should have known you probably have never read and I mean read the bible. So to spell it out for you Kinds are the class of animals dog, cat, bird etc.

I wrote: Biology tells us that a DNA strand carries all the information necessary for variations to occur within a kind.

You wrote :Umm, that's not in any biology source I've ever read. None of them say anything at all about this "kind" concept.

Rebuttal:
I notice you went back to the Kind argument. Did you notice you were looking at a nudie mag. and not a biology book? I’ll give you a hint there are words like cell and DNA in them and oh goodness written by scientist.

I wrote: We see this everyday with selective breeding.

You wrote: OK, I'd like to see you selectively breed two "primitive" birds and produce a sparrow, a hawk and a parrot. Better yet, start with two dinosaurs and selectively breed a bird. Or how about two reptiles and selectively breed a dinosaur. Or two fish and selectively breed an amphibian.

Damn, that's a pretty good parallel to what evolution does! Except there's no external selective breeder other than the environment and its selection pressures.

Do you know how many different species of birds there are today? I would guess, say, 10,000. So you're proposing that all 10,000 of those diverse species, from hummingbird to ostrich, from penguin to condor, diversified from one pair of birds on the ark in about 4000 years? Incredible.

Rebuttal:
This one almost speaks for itself. It shows what little understanding you have about adaptation. Ever hear of microevolution. If I could manipulate DNA, I could produce different varieties easily. Think about it. Breeders don’t take two dogs of different “classes” and say okay when we put these together we will get an Irish Shepard. They breed in desirable characteristics and breed out undesirable characteristics over an EXTENDED amount of time until they get the results they want.

I Wrote: Also, in the time since the flood there has been enough time to attribute for the variety we see today.

You Wrote: Assuming it's 4000 years, not. You do realize that you're saying all the diversity of life we see today, I believe an estimated 1.5 million or so distinct species, would have to have evolved from a few kinds in only 4000 years. That's way beyond any rate that scientific evolutionary theory proposes. Creationists sometimes claim that 3.5 billion years is not enough to account for the diversity we see on earth.

Rebuttal:
Ever hear of exponential growth? Another thing, I don’t believe in evolutionary theory as it is portrayed by the mainstream. Especially when Darwin himself wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (See: The Origin of Species)
Beginning biology students, upon first glance of the cell, are struck by its utter complexity.
I wrote: 3. Forget about the Epic of Gilgamesh, which people say the flood story originated from. It is much more likely that the Gilgamesh Epic and the Noah Flood were derived from the same event. The Sumerians, probably thru oral transmission, most likely modified the original account (found in the bible) by intermingling their mythology into the story.

You wrote: Umm, the recorded Sumerian account predates the recorded Biblical account by quite a bit. So you'd appear to have it backwards - the Hebrews may have adapted the pre-existing Sumerian account into their mythology (e.g. during the captivity in Babylon).

Rebuttal:
You have got to be kidding. Just because something was Written first in no way means it is original. If you knew your history, you would know that the worlds people used an oral tradition, which means they were illiterate until a writing system was devised, which for the Hebrews happened to be after the Sumerians.

I wrote: The reason I think this is because of the numerous flood myths from around the world. Are they all a version of the Gilgamesh epic or more plausible narratives of a single event passed on throughout the ages until the stories hardly resemble each other?

You wrote: Well, many of them may be myths adapted from other or older cultures, but they are diverse and different enough that many of them may well have originated from different local flood events, or not from a single flood but from recurring, seasonal floods (as is seen on the Nile and other great rivers). Floods occur all over the world, can be spectacular events, and so it's not surprising that a variety of the world's cultures, from Africa, to Asia, to the Americas, developed myths around floods.
Rebuttal: I would agree with you on some level with this one. However, these flood myths of which I am alluding to deal with a common theme –The origin of those people on the land they occupy. Nothing near a burst dam tragedy tale.

Was it as good for you as it was for me? Notice I used non-religious sources. Unless you consider Darwinism a religion, I would. It is after all a belief system is it not?