The "Great" Flood and Cuyahoga County

[Jimmy Higgins]

So anyways, I'm a geotechnical engineer by trade. I design foundations and work closely with geology and Cuyahoga County, Ohio (that's where Cleveland is), has a most interesting thing. Bedrock, for the sake of simplicity, is at about 650 in the burbs of Cleveland. However, as you move near the Cuyahoga River, just to the west of it, the bedrock starts to fall down. Really fall down. In fact, it goes all the way down to sea level! So that is a quick drop from 650 feet to 0 feet. The rock then rises back up, forming what would seem to be a buried valley. The soils in the buried valley consist predominantly of silts and clays.

What is strange is that the sides of this valley are all sedimentary rocks! In other words, somehow the global flood was capable of doing a miracle.
1) It formed the sedimentary rock column in the Cleveland area
2) In a short width, running a long while, it was incapable of turning any of the silt or clay into siltstone or shale. Yet just to each side, there are sedimentary rocks.

So my question is, how is this possible under a flood model? How would it be possible for the flood to create shale bedrock as close to the ground surface as 20 feet, but less than 1/4 mile away, the rock drops and the soil from the flood didn't turn into rock, not even the soil under 600' of pressure! Any takers?

[wienerdog]

Hi Jimmy,

I believe the flood covered the known world, but for the sake of argument I would respond to your statement that
What is strange is that the sides of this valley are all sedimentary rocks! In other words, somehow the global flood was capable of doing a miracle.
by saying that it WAS a miracle.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-13-2003 @ 03:31 AM
wienerdog:
by saying that it WAS a miracle. A miracle? Why? Why do that? What does it matter? A miracle is Smart being found alive, not geologic features that seem to be overwhelming evidence of an old earth.

This place is crawling with YEC's. Is there anyone that can take this one. I'm sorry that it hasn't already been debunked by AIG or ICR or Hovind. They don't go seeking out evidence going against them.

[Goochdad]

Wienerdog,

I think the problem presented by saying that it's a miracle, and no further explanation is necessary, is this--it makes the God of the Old Testament into a trickster God, who made the earth look very much as if it is 4.5 billion years old, when it (according to YECs) is actually 6000 years old.

Few YEC's accept the trickster God idea, so they try to come up with a scientific explanation for why such-and-such geological feature is consistent with the Genesis story. In other words, they do science backwards, by looking for evidence that fits the desired conclusion, and ignoring all other evidence.

Cheers.

[Jimmy Higgins]

:bawl: :bawl: :bawl: :bawl: :bawl: :bawl:

No one will answer my detailed post dealing flood geology. People in here believe in a global flood, yet they won't answer my simple wimple, tiny weiny, itty bity question. *SOB*

[Sher]

03-13-2003 @ 10:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=33933#post33933)
Goochdad:

Wienerdog,

I think the problem presented by saying that it's a miracle, and no further explanation is necessary, is this--it makes the God of the Old Testament into a trickster God, who made the earth look very much as if it is 4.5 billion years old, when it (according to YECs) is actually 6000 years old."trickster God" is an argument from ridicule ... God made Adam and Eve of an age to be mates, with the appearance of age neccessary for the purpose:

(Gen 2:20-24) So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper [literally a "help meet", i.e. a mate] comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

The same understanding comes with determining that God had a purpose for which He created the Earth, and His miracle of creation made the Earth in whatever form was necessary to meet that purpose.Few YEC's accept the trickster God idea,Because it is fallacious...so they try to come up with a scientific explanation for why such-and-such geological feature is consistent with the Genesis story. In other words, they do science backwards, by looking for evidence that fits the desired conclusion, and ignoring all other evidence.Argument from assertion, failure to provide proof of ignoring evidence. Non sequitur: If one ignores the interpretation of evidence, it does not mean that one ignores the evidence. The evidence is what it is ... the evolutionary explaination is your interpretation.Cheers. You too. Have a root beer on me ---> :cheers:

[Socrates]

As if a misotheist like Goochdad, who is not a geologist anyway, would care whether a Christian believes in an alleged "trickster god" anyway. Rather, a REAL trickster God would be one who told us one thing in Genesis but did the opposite!! God is not the one who deceives; rather, the misotheists deceive THEMSELVES by refusing to believe the clear history He has revealed in favor of circumstantial evidence. See The Parable of the Candle (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp).]

And as far as Jimmy Higgins' question is concerned, he is an engineer who posts crass anti-Christian attacks on his website (when he's not defending Saddam's regime from our wicked military attack). Therefore at present there is no reason to trust him. And he expects creationists in Australia to answer detailed questions about some obscure geology in Ohio. There would probably be come creationist geologists in the USA who could show where this fits in with various stages of the Flood and its aftermaths.

Strange how evolutionists claim that a particular creationist should be able to answer every claimed anomaly, but of course won't abandon their evolutionary faith in the face of gaping unsolved problems.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45177#post45177)
Socrates:

See The Parable of the Candle (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp).That's good (and appropriate) ... haven't seen that parable before. ::print::

[Tycho]

Today @ 11:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45170#post45170)
SherBear:
"trickster God" is an argument from ridicule ... God made Adam and Eve of an age to be mates, with the appearance of age neccessary for the purpose:
The "trickster God" is the conclusion drawn from two premises: (1) that the Earth is actually young (~6000 years), and (2) that God is responsible for the evidence that we see for an ancient (~4.5 billion years) Earth. Sure, I can see how God might make Adam appear relatively old (God's a lousy parent after all--just look at what happened to Jesus!), but why make the Earth look to be billions of years old? It makes even less sense for the stars which are more than 6000 light years away!

Because it [a trickster God] is fallacious
You may not believe in a trickster God, but that hardly makes the concept inherently fallacious. That word just doesn't mean what you think it means.

...Argument from assertion, failure to provide proof of ignoring evidence.
All you need to do to find evidence for Goochdad's assertion is browse the science forum here. For a truly vast number of examples, you can seach talk.origins.

Non sequitur: If one ignores the interpretation of evidence, it does not mean that one ignores the evidence. The evidence is what it is ... the evolutionary explaination is your interpretation.
Evidence cannot be interpretted arbitrarily--when observations either confirm or disconfirm a prediction, the theory on which the prediction was based either has evidence for or against it. In this case, evolutionary theory is not an interpretation of the evidence but rather a theory with evidence.

[Tycho]

03-13-2003 @ 02:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=34149#post34149)
Jimmy Higgins:
No one will answer my detailed post dealing flood geology. People in here believe in a global flood, yet they won't answer my simple wimple, tiny weiny, itty bity question. *SOB*
How could they if Kent Hovind or AiG haven't released a sound-bite answer yet? Rest assured though, that when some creationist can think of a snide misrepresentation that rhymes but answers none of your queries ("Goo to you" sound funny, so it's wrong. Nyah!), you won't hear the end of it!

[Socrates]

Tycho:
The "trickster God" is the conclusion drawn from two premises: (1) that the Earth is actually young (~6000 years), and (2) that God is responsible for the evidence that we see for an ancient (~4.5 billion years) Earth. Tycho once more begs the question. We do NOT see age, but rather age is inferred from certain physical process INTERPRETED within a naturalistic framework. That was the point of the Parable of the Candle. The size of the candle was interpreted against a written note from a reliable eye-witness, but the ASSUMPTIONS turned out to be wrong.Sure, I can see how God might make Adam appear relatively old ...The correct term is "functionally mature". (God's a lousy parent after all--just look at what happened to Jesus!),Yes, He VOLUNTARILY died for our sins. Stop changing the topic! but why make the Earth look to be billions of years old?It doesn't -- see The earth: how old does it look? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp) It makes even less sense for the stars which are more than 6000 light years away!Tycho seems unaware that a light year is a measurement only of DISTANCE, not time. See also How can we see distant stars in a young Universe? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp)

[Tycho]

Today @ 12:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45189#post45189)
Socrates:

Tycho:
The "trickster God" is the conclusion drawn from two premises: (1) that the Earth is actually young (~6000 years), and (2) that God is responsible for the evidence that we see for an ancient (~4.5 billion years) Earth. Tycho once more begs the question. We do NOT see age, but rather age is inferred from certain physical process INTERPRETED within a naturalistic framework. That was the point of the Parable of the Candle. The size of the candle was interpreted against a written note from a reliable eye-witness, but the ASSUMPTIONS turned out to be wrong.
Are you unable to read the thread? The OP deals rather explicitly with evidence for an ancient Earth, yet the best reply from the creationists boils down to "God's just pulling our legs, the ol' trickster!" What's with the INTERPRETTED? It's been explained many times that evidence is not interpretted! Furthermore, do you even understand the difference between the "natural" and "supernatural?" You keep acting as if there were some way of including the supernatural in science and that methodological naturalism is just some kind of arbitrary bias that scientists have!

(God's a lousy parent after all--just look at what happened to Jesus!),Yes, He VOLUNTARILY died for our sins. Stop changing the topic!
This is an aside! Are you really so ignorant of basic communication that you think that a single parenthetical comment determines the topic of the post--even when the rest of the post deals with something entirely different?

but why make the Earth look to be billions of years old?It doesn't -- see The earth: how old does it look? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp)
LOL! The same one who wanted me to stay on topic can only respond by going off-topic. Why can't he address the issues raised by the parent and grandparent posts? The thing that makes this so sad, however, is that he can only post a URL instead of making his own argument.

It makes even less sense for the stars which are more than 6000 light years away!Tycho seems unaware that a light year is a measurement only of DISTANCE, not time. See also How can we see distant stars in a young Universe? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp)
Are you going to make your own argument sometime, or will you continue to post URL after URL from AiG?

[Sher]

Based on seeing some quotes on Socrates' posting, SherBear opens her ignore list to see what tgamble/Tycho is talking about : Tycho: The "trickster God" is the conclusion drawn from two premises: (1) that the Earth is actually young (~6000 years), and (2) that God is responsible for the evidence that we see for an ancient (~4.5 billion years) Earth.And as I said, the assertion is an argument of ridicule. If it had been more appropriately submitted, it might not have been a fallacy. As I also showed by example, the premise is faulty and the conclusion made is wrong. A trickster is one who plays tricks. A trick is "an act or a procedure intended to achieve an end by deceptive or fraudulent means." As Soc showed by example with the parable, the act/procedure is not with the intent to deceive or defraud. In fact, we are given scriptures to ensure that we are not mistaken on any point. Choose to disbelieve the Bible if you must, but you have misrepresented the point.Tycho: Sure, I can see how God might make Adam appear relatively oldAgain, interpretation of the evidence. You see appearance of relative oldness but the evidence points to functionality (as Soc said).Tycho: (God's a lousy parent after all--just look at what happened to Jesus!),Now I remember why you are on my ignore list. You can't simply just address the point without ridicule, can you? This refers to one of the most sacred parts of our faith, yet you try to stomp on it with a nasty attitude. Anyway, you miss what happens afterward ....Hallelujah the Lord has risen indeed ... "and

... being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:8-11) Tycho: but why make the Earth look to be billions of years old?And once again your interpretation of the evidence. Science has proven that Earth needs to be a certain way for life to exist. Evolutionists interpret this as billions of years of evolution that made the conditions right and make the earth look like it does. Creationists explain to the misguided Evolutionists that this is creation by God to serve that function. For it not to be a fallacy, you (collective you) would have to prove the assertion that God did this with the intention of deceiving, thereby denying His omniscience.

Tycho adds his own spin on what I said: SherBear: “ Because it is fallacious ” Tycho: You may not believe in a trickster God, but that hardly makes the concept inherently fallacious. That word just doesn't mean what you think it means.I pointed out earlier that an argument from ridicule is fallacious ... "based on a fallacy" ("look it up, use it, wear it out") ... and why it is fallacious. If Goochdad had said that he believed that God set out to intentionally deceive mankind and supported this with reason, not assertions by interpretation of evidence, then it may not have been considered a fallacy. It is both in the wording that ridicules, and the support that was lacking in substance. SherBear: “ ...Argument from assertion, failure to provide proof of ignoring evidence. ” Tycho: All you need to do to find evidence for Goochdad's assertion is browse the science forum here. For a truly vast number of examples, you can seach talk.origins.It is merely your opinion that what is located there constitutes the proof of Goochdad's point. He did not cite specific examples of evidence being ignored, neither did you. Again, for the assertions you both make (that evidence is ignored) to lack fallacy, proof has to be shown that the interpretations are evidence in and of themselves.Tycho: Evidence cannot be interpretted arbitrarily--when observations either confirm or disconfirm a prediction, the theory on which the prediction was based either has evidence for or against it. In this case, evolutionary theory is not an interpretation of the evidence but rather a theory with evidence.Your explanation does not give any rebuttal to my statement: "Non sequitur: If one ignores the interpretation of evidence, it does not mean that one ignores the evidence. The evidence is what it is ... the evolutionary explanation is your interpretation." You only succeed in using evidence in two different manners here ... (1) Evidence that stands alone, for which mankind makes interpretation; (2) Evidence for or against a theory. The first is what it is ... a stand-alone thing. The second is subjective to the interpretation of the person and incorporates biases and other allowances for error.

Example: (assuming reasonable intelligence and sanity here) The cup on my desk exists. It is the evidence we will review in this example. We can actually observe this cup (opposed to some things that are unobservable and therefore cannot have empirical proof). You interpret the cup to be x" tall, colored green, and be filled with a brown liquid comprised of x-ide and x-oxide (whatever). I tell you that I know that it is in fact x" tall (you are correct), that the brown liquid is Diet Rite (TM) soda, and that it is not colored blue but rather aqua (more blue than green). We debate this back and forth, and I play the trump card ... written evidence from the manufacturer who actually mixed the paint used to color the cup (and says it's aqua), and the empty bottle that I poured the drink from. The letter from the manufacturer and the empty bottle are (2) evidence for (or against) the interpretations you made. The evidence of the cup (solid) is not the same as the "evidence" of the assertions/interpretations (subject to change). Therefore, once again I submit that it is a fallacy to say that YEC ignore (1) evidence, but rather we ignore (and not really even ignore, but often dismiss as invalid, ignorant, or ill-formed) interpretation (i.e., {2} "evidence").

If you are confused, please blame it not on me, but rather on the evolutionary society that constantly plays games with definitions, twisting them to mean something that cause greater blanket statements, which allow for ridicule against someone who disagrees ... "You don't believe in {insert blank term}, you must be an idiot" ... when {blanket term} is in fact ... well, blanket ... not specific to something ... so one is not "allowed" to disagree with one part without risking ridicule on not believing the whole shebang.

Later Socrates answered"Tycho once more begs the question. We do NOT see age, but rather age is inferred from certain physical process INTERPRETED within a naturalistic framework. That was the point of the Parable of the Candle. The size of the candle was interpreted against a written note from a reliable eye-witness, but the ASSUMPTIONS turned out to be wrong. ” and Tycho answered irrationally: "Are you unable to read the thread? The OP deals rather explicitly with evidence for an ancient Earth, yet the best reply from the creationists boils down to "God's just pulling our legs, the ol' trickster!" Um, Tycho, excuse me but are you unable to read the thread? This comment was made by Goochdad and was against the creationists, not by a creationist.Tycho: What's with the INTERPRETTED? It's been explained many times that evidence is not interpretted!I covered this sufficiently above, save to ask how Tycho thinks that there exists such variances of theories if not for scientific interpretation of evidence? Again, evidence is neutral ... it is what it is ... the truth of the matter. Interpretation is subjective to the interpreter and can only be a good as the observation and deduction skills of a failable human being. This is why old theory is constantly thrown out in light of new discoveries. If you were correct, scientists would still think that the sun revolved around the earth ... the evidence of the heavens hasn't changed ... only the interpretation.Tycho: This is an aside! Are you really so ignorant of basic communication that you think that a single parenthetical comment determines the topic of the post--even when the rest of the post deals with something entirely different?Perhaps he was simply offended, as I was, by your intolerant attitude. And BTW, a parenthetical comment is usually used to qualify or explain a point, not to ridicule ... otherwise it is just a red herring, trolling for someone to blast back so the o.p.'r can act self-righteous and say "it was just an aside" ... Tycho: LOL! The same one who wanted me to stay on topic can only respond by going off-topic. You asked a question that Socrates answered?? How is that off-topic?

Anyway, I am off to bed.

[Tycho]

Today @ 02:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45228#post45228)
SherBear:
Based on seeing some quotes on Socrates' posting, SherBear opens her ignore list to see what tgamble/Tycho is talking about :
Thanks the powers! He needs some help.

Tycho: The "trickster God" is the conclusion drawn from two premises: (1) that the Earth is actually young (~6000 years), and (2) that God is responsible for the evidence that we see for an ancient (~4.5 billion years) Earth.And as I said, the assertion is an argument of ridicule. If it had been more appropriately submitted, it might not have been a fallacy. As I also showed by example, the premise is faulty and the conclusion made is wrong. A trickster is one who plays tricks. A trick is "an act or a procedure intended to achieve an end by deceptive or fraudulent means."
You were wrong when you first posted this "fallacy," and you're still wrong. Instead of trying to argue with inaccurate analogies, you should try to argue with theories and evidence. What you must realize is that science does not depend on divine revelation, but on evidence. If you want to assert that a supposed testimony is accurate, you first have to demonstrate some evidence in support of this hypothesis. Instead, you're saying that the testimony is accurate in spite of the evidence. This isn't science--it's dogma.

Tycho: Sure, I can see how God might make Adam appear relatively oldAgain, interpretation of the evidence. You see appearance of relative oldness but the evidence points to functionality (as Soc said).
At this point, you'll notice that I'm actually agreeing with you regarding functionality. Unfortunately, I notice that you refuse to address the non-functional "appearance of age."

Tycho: (God's a lousy parent after all--just look at what happened to Jesus!),Now I remember why you are on my ignore list. You can't simply just address the point without ridicule, can you? This refers to one of the most sacred parts of our faith, yet you try to stomp on it with a nasty attitude.
Yes, it was that, or the fact that I take the time to point out your errors. Well, believe what you wish.

Anyway, you miss what happens afterward ....Hallelujah the Lord has risen indeed ... "and

... being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:8-11)
Ah, the meat and bones of creationism: scripture.

Tycho: but why make the Earth look to be billions of years old?And once again your interpretation of the evidence. Science has proven that Earth needs to be a certain way for life to exist. Evolutionists interpret this as billions of years of evolution that made the conditions right and make the earth look like it does. Creationists explain to the misguided Evolutionists that this is creation by God to serve that function.
Once again, the difference between science and religion is made clear: religion "interprets," science explains and predicts. For example, what could we predict based on the hypothesis of an ancient Earth? A noticible lack of radioactive materials with half-lives of a million years or less (assuming that these are no being produced in nuclear reactions). Last time I checked, this is indeed what we observe. Of course, creationists can only "interpret" this to mean that God is being somewhat less than honest about this whole "universe" deal.

Tycho: All you need to do to find evidence for Goochdad's assertion is browse the science forum here. For a truly vast number of examples, you can seach talk.origins.It is merely your opinion that what is located there constitutes the proof of Goochdad's point.
Look up McCoy, Pagano, and Holden on talk.origins.

He did not cite specific examples of evidence being ignored, neither did you. Again, for the assertions you both make (that evidence is ignored) to lack fallacy, proof has to be shown that the interpretations are evidence in and of themselves.
Bugger, the specific examples of invincible ignorance are not all that difficult to find! How long are you going to pretend they don't exist so you can repeat you inaccurate accusations of 'fallacy?'

Tycho: Evidence cannot be interpretted arbitrarily--when observations either confirm or disconfirm a prediction, the theory on which the prediction was based either has evidence for or against it. In this case, evolutionary theory is not an interpretation of the evidence but rather a theory with evidence.Your explanation does not give any rebuttal to my statement: "Non sequitur: If one ignores the interpretation of evidence, it does not mean that one ignores the evidence. The evidence is what it is ... the evolutionary explanation is your interpretation." You only succeed in using evidence in two different manners here ... (1) Evidence that stands alone, for which mankind makes interpretation; (2) Evidence for or against a theory. The first is what it is ... a stand-alone thing. The second is subjective to the interpretation of the person and incorporates biases and other allowances for error.
Evidence can't stand alone--it has to be evidence in relation to some proposition. Predictions are anything but subjective. If a prediction is subjective, then the theory is too ambiguous. Once again, you're still trying to argue relgion instead of science.

Example: (assuming reasonable intelligence and sanity here) The cup on my desk exists. It is the evidence we will review in this example. We can actually observe this cup (opposed to some things that are unobservable and therefore cannot have empirical proof). You interpret the cup to be x" tall,
Except a halfway decent observation avoids these interpretations. Is a cup "tall" or "30 centimeters high?" The first term doesn't really mean much. The second is something definite.

We debate this back and forth,
Debate over what's observed is different from debate over what the observation supports.

and I play the trump card ... written evidence from the manufacturer who actually mixed the paint used to color the cup (and says it's aqua), and the empty bottle that I poured the drink from. The letter from the manufacturer and the empty bottle are (2) evidence for (or against) the interpretations you made.
So far so good, so long as we can agree that the notice is actually from the manufacturer of the cup and isn't the manufacturer's poetry homework.

Therefore, once again I submit that it is a fallacy to say that YEC ignore (1) evidence, but rather we ignore (and not really even ignore, but often dismiss as invalid, ignorant, or ill-formed) interpretation (i.e., {2} "evidence").
OK, let's say that the Inspector walks into a room to find a corpse with a knife in the back. There is dried blood on the floor and the corpse is room-temperature (24 degrees). The room is smashed. The inspector cries, "this man is alive!" Now, is the inspector ignoring the evidence, or just "interpretting" it differently?

If you are confused, please blame it not on me, but rather on the evolutionary society that constantly plays games with definitions, twisting them to mean something that cause greater blanket statements,
These "people" are called creationists. For example, see how they talk about evolution as if it had something to do with abiogenesis or even cosmology. Also see how they make up their own second law of thermodynamics with its own bizarre definitions of entropy and information. And let's not forget their constant re-definitions of "micro-" and "macro-evolution."

Later Scrates answered"Tycho once more begs the question. We do NOT see age, but rather age is inferred from certain physical process INTERPRETED within a naturalistic framework. That was the point of the Parable of the Candle. The size of the candle was interpreted against a written note from a reliable eye-witness, but the ASSUMPTIONS turned out to be wrong. ” and Tycho answered irrationally: "Are you unable to read the thread? The OP deals rather explicitly with evidence for an ancient Earth, yet the best reply from the creationists boils down to "God's just pulling our legs, the ol' trickster!" Um, Tycho, excuse me but are you unable to read the thread? This comment was made by Goochdad and was against the creationists, not by a creationist.
Perhaps you're confused. The OP is not by a creationist. One of the creationist responses was by a creationist. This response boiled down to the trickster God. Is that rational enough for you?

Tycho: What's with the INTERPRETTED? It's been explained many times that evidence is not interpretted!I covered this sufficiently above, save to ask how Tycho thinks that there exists such variances of theories if not for scientific interpretation of evidence?
No matter how much he tries, the inspector cannot "interpret" the corpse to mean that it's a living being.

Again, evidence is neutral ... it is what it is ... the truth of the matter. Interpretation is subjective to the interpreter and can only be a good as the observation and deduction skills of a failable human being. This is why old theory is constantly thrown out in light of new discoveries. If you were correct, scientists would still think that the sun revolved around the earth ... the evidence of the heavens hasn't changed ... only the interpretation.
Gosh, you're right! If I were correct, scientists still would believe that the Sun orbits the Earth, because that's what the "manufacturer" said. Oh wait! That's you're argument.

If you would, please detail the "interpretations" of whatever observations the ancients had which allowed them to scientifically believe that the Sun orbited the Earth.

Tycho: This is an aside! Are you really so ignorant of basic communication that you think that a single parenthetical comment determines the topic of the post--even when the rest of the post deals with something entirely different?Perhaps he was simply offended, as I was, by your intolerant attitude. And BTW, a parenthetical comment is usually used to qualify or explain a point, not to ridicule
Yes, it explained that particular sentence. As for offense, please note the difference between, "I take offence at this statement," and, "don't change the topic." You see, one of those statements (slightly paraphrased) appeard in Socrates' response.

I'm really not sure how detailed an explanation you require. Let me know if the above is insufficient.

Tycho: LOL! The same one who wanted me to stay on topic can only respond by going off-topic. You asked a question that Socrates answered?? How is that off-topic?
Please read the thread next time. The question wasn't "is the Earth billions of years old?" but "why would does the Earth look to be billions of years old?" It's a rather important distinction in the whole trickster God debate. BTW, I notice that you still have not answered what function requires the Earth to look billions of years old.

[Bill the Cat]

Funny, the Earth doesn't look billions of years old to me!! So how does one evaluate the age of the Earth anyway without something CONCRETE the same age to compare it against? Don't give me radioactivity or sedement or fossil records either. They all can be discounted by the Creationist point of view. If Evolution and the Old Earth idea were so proven, they would be called LAWS, like gravity, but ooooh, hang on, they are called THEORIES!! Meaning yet to be proven FACT, like I see so many here posting.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45404#post45404)
Bill the Cat:

Funny, the Earth doesn't look billions of years old to me!! So how does one evaluate the age of the Earth anyway without something CONCRETE the same age to compare it against? Don't give me radioactivity or sedement or fossil records either. They all can be discounted by the Creationist point of view. If Evolution and the Old Earth idea were so proven, they would be called LAWS, like gravity, but ooooh, hang on, they are called THEORIES!! Meaning yet to be proven FACT, like I see so many here posting.

Very interesting question. You should start a thread on it. You however have not made a single point regarding the situation I have presented regarding Cuyahoga County. I'd like to hear your opinion on that.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45404#post45404)
Bill the Cat:
Funny, the Earth doesn't look billions of years old to me!!
Well, it can't be then! You've just overturned centuries of scientific learning with that amazing revelation.
They all can be discounted by the Creationist point of view.
You could 'prove' that black was white with the creationist point of view.
If Evolution and the Old Earth idea were so proven, they would be called LAWS, like gravity, but ooooh, hang on, they are called THEORIES!!
Er... 'the laws of the earth being old'? How could that be a law? That doesn't even make sense.

Seriously, if you don't understand the absolute basics of science, don't bother. I may not have a qualification from a pretend university or $99 diploma mill like your creationist pals, but at least I make the effort to learn the really simple stuff.

There is no rule which says that first things are ideas, then they're theories, then they're laws. That is in your head.
Meaning yet to be proven FACT, like I see so many here posting.
No, 'theory' means that it is a scientific theory. In science, 'theory' does not mean 'guess'. A theory is as close as you can come to a fact.

Evolution is a fact. But scientists do not use that terminology, even when referring to gravity. They call it a theory, because theories change. Facts do not.

Paul

[Bill the Cat]

If I could figure out that darn multiquote thing, I'd use it, but , aaah, here goes...


Well, it can't be then! You've just overturned centuries of scientific learning with that amazing revelation.

## Someone has their panties in awad today huh? Some people don't take a joke too well.

You could 'prove' that black was white with the creationist point of view.

Funny, The way light is absorbed and reflected has nothing to do with the evolution discussion (see I can be snooty too)

Er... 'the laws of the earth being old'? How could that be a law? That doesn't even make sense.

I was referring to the way you and other evolutionists throw around the 4.5 billion year "law" like it's a sure thing. Up till a few years ago it was a sure 2 billion. That is what I am referring to.

Seriously, if you don't understand the absolute basics of science, don't bother. I may not have a qualification from a pretend university or $99 diploma mill like your creationist pals, but at least I make the effort to learn the really simple stuff.

I do understand the basics, and what type of degree I may or may not have is irrelevant. I also make the effort to learn the simple stuff. You and I are alike. We are so stuck into our own mindsets, we refuse to see the other relevant facts.

There is no rule which says that first things are ideas, then they're theories, then they're laws. That is in your head.

Wow, thanks Dr. Freud. I'm cured!!!

No, 'theory' means that it is a scientific theory. In science, 'theory' does not mean 'guess'. A theory is as close as you can come to a fact.

Wow, then why do scientists continue to test them if they are so close to fact??

Evolution is a fact. But scientists do not use that terminology, even when referring to gravity. They call it a theory, because theories change. Facts do not.

Hogwash!! You show me a transitional fossil and I'll listen. You show me evidence of abiogenesis and I'll listen. Explain how human footprints are found in the same strata as dinosaur fossils
and I'll listen. Until then, you have nothing more than Star Trek.

[Woman]

Bill - oh dear.

Bill says: Hogwash!! You show me a transitional fossil and I'll listen. You show me evidence of abiogenesis and I'll listen. Explain how human footprints are found in the same strata as dinosaur fossils and I'll listen. Until then, you have nothing more than Star Trek.

Just on the off chance that you are a serious YEC, there are a few things you should know. Answers in Genesis is advising NOT to use that "human footprint/dinosaur fossil" argument any more, because it's been shown to be false.

Next, if you really want to meet a transition critter, let me introduce you to achaeopteryx.

The following is from an article written seven years ago and there have been a couple more critters found since then that are even more amazing. Enjoy!

The example of the evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds, as represented by the fossil Archaeopteryx, is without a doubt the most famous in the world, and nearly every biology textbook that discusses evolution cites Archaeopteryx as an example. Six specimens of Archaeopteryx lithographica have been found, the first just two years after Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published. In appearence, the specimens resemble the skeletons of small therapod dinosaurs--it is only the unmistakable imprints of feathers surrounding the fossil bones which indicate that we are dealing with a bird (in fact, the resemblance is so close that one of the skeletons was misidentified for several decades as a small therapod, and another was misidentified as a pterodactyl--a mistake not corrected until someone noticed the faint impressions of feathers).

One almost could not ask for a better example of a transitional fossil than Archaeopteryx. It exhibits an unmistakeable mixture of reptilian and avian characteristics. A bird, of course, is defined by the presence of feathers. Flight feathers of Archaeopteryx are well-preserved, and are virtually indistinguishable from those of modern birds. They possess the central shaft and side barbules found in any songbird of today. The feathers are also asymmetrical and are wider on the trailing edge than the front edge--an adaptation shown by flying birds but not by flightless birds such as penguins or ostriches. This indicates that Archaeopteryx was probably capable of flight (although the fossil lacks the large keeled breastbone which all modern birds use to attach their flight muscles, and the attachment points were themselves much smaller than in modern birds--thus it is possible that Archaeopteryx was only a glider and was not capable of powered flight). The large contour feathers are the only kind found on Archaeopteryx skeletons--no smaller downy feathers have been found, although these are possessed by all modern birds.

Apart from the feathers, however, Archaeopteryx exhibits a number of characteristics which are not birdlike at all, but are shared by the therapod dinosaurs--and some of these are found in no other group of animals. Among the dinosaurian characteristics exhibited by Archaeopteryx are: simple concave articulation points on the cervical vertebrae, rather than the elongated saddle-shaped articulation found in birds; vertebrae in the trunk region which are free and mobile, rather than fused together as in birds; the presence of gastralia, or abdominal ribs, which are found in reptiles and therapods but not in birds; a rib cage which lacks uncinate processes and does not articulate with the sternum, rather than the strutlike uncinates and sternum articulations found in all birds; a sacrum consisting of only 6 vertebrae, rather than the 11-23 found in birds; mobile joints in the bones of the elbow, wrist and fingers, rather than the fused joints found in birds; a shoulder socket that faces downward like a therapod's, rather than outward like a bird's; solid bones which lack pneumatic sacs, rather than the hollow air-permeated bones found in birds; and a long bony tail with free vertebrae, rather than the short fused pygostile found in birds;

The Archaeopteryx skull is also typically reptilian in structure, exhibiting: a number of openings or "fenestrae" in the skull, arranged as in therapod dinosaurs and not birds; a heavy but short quadratic bone which is inclined forward as in reptiles; a bend in the jawbones behind the tooth row; a long retro-articular process, which is found in reptiles but not in birds; a thin straight jugal bone as in reptiles; a preorbital bar separating the anteorbital fenestra and the eye socket (a reptilian characteristic); an occipital condyle and foramen magnum that are located above the dorsal end of the quadrate bone as in therapods, rather than below the quadrate as in all other birds; and a brain structure which exhibits elongated and slender cerebral hemispheres which do not overlap the midbrain (in birds, the cerebral hemispheres are heavy and extend over top of the midbrain).

To read in full:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/archie.htm

:hi:

[Socrates]

Snooty wrote: Seriously, if you don't understand the absolute basics of science, don't bother. I may not have a qualification I.e. you are not qualified in science, yet that doesn't stop you pontificating on it... from a pretend university or $99 diploma mill like your creationist pals,And where is the evidence that the scientists working at the major creationist organisations have phony degrees? Check out the AiG scientists for yourself at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp -- they ALL have EARNED Ph.D. degrees in SCIENCE from SECULAR universities. That is, Drs Batten, Catchpoole, Jerlström, Sarfati and Walker. The first three are biologists!

I will not deign to defend one-man-band outfits that may well have diploma mill degrees -- Snooty has used a dishonest guilt-by-association ploy to lump the AiG and ICR scientists with them. He has made a serious accusation, so he must substantiate it or withdraw.... but at least I make the effort to learn the really simple stuff.It doesn't show.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Concentrate people. This thread is on the improbable event of the Flood creating the condition as described in Cuyahoga County. This isn't about degree mills, or ICR or AIG having PhD's. This is about Cuyahoga County. SO can I please have someone explain how the "Great" Flood managed to do what I explained?

[Socrates]

Gynecopteryx :brow::

I already answered your other post on Archaeopteryx. There, the hyperlink didn't work, but now that it does, it's even sillier than I thought. Now I see it's from one of the most ignorant and vexatious anti-creationists around, one village atheist called Lenny Flank who lacks scientific qualifications -- see this refutation of one of his pieces where he tries to take on Biblical inerrancy www.tektonics.org/flanksteak.html

Not only can't he spell "theropod", but he's hopelessly out of date. Archie DID have pneumatized bones, indicating air sacs and the avian lung system (Christiansen, P. and Bonde, N., Axial and appendicular pneumaticity in Archaeopteryx, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 267:2501–2505, 2000).

[Woman]

Socrates says:
I already answered your other post on Archaeopteryx. There, the hyperlink didn't work, but now that it does, it's even sillier than I thought. Now I see it's from one of the most ignorant and vexatious anti-creationists around, one village atheist called Lenny Flank who lacks scientific qualifications -- see this refutation of one of his pieces where he tries to take on Biblical inerrancy www.tektonics.org/flanksteak.html

Not only can't he spell "theropod", but he's hopelessly out of date. Archie DID have pneumatized bones, indicating air sacs and the avian lung system (Christiansen, P. and Bonde, N., Axial and appendicular pneumaticity in Archaeopteryx, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 267:2501–2505, 2000).

You don't care for Lenny, eh? :rant:

Okay, here's a couple of references for you.


http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.daily-tangents.com/Aves/Archaeop/

Both of these are "moderate." But the conclusion is much the same. The second one is really a great site - lots of pics, links, etc.

"village atheist" - clever

You liked my icon, though.:yipee:

[Socrates]

Woman is to be commended :smile: for finally referring to some far more reputable sources than that Flank :dufus:. This creation-hater swears at people who disagree with him on debate boards, has no idea about science and can't even spell. But there are still mistakes in these more reputable sources.

E.g. on www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html, there is this claim:The flight stroke may have originated as an extension of the grabbing forearm motions that smaller, agile theropods such as Deinonychus may have used to grab and hang on to prey. But AiG demonstrted the fallacy of that in the article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1126dinosaur.asp:

The Australian museum had a feathered dinosaur display run by outspoken atheists, and they claimed:

These dinosaurs had also developed a special bone in the wrist that enabled them to fold their long arms against their body, just as birds do today. It also allowed them to move their hands in a broad fan-shaped motion and to snap their long arms and grasping fingers forward to grab fleeing prey. This powerful, flapping motion has today become an important part of the flight stroke in modern birds.

AiG responded:
This can’t be serious—powered flight is far more complex than simply a flap. For some information about the complexity of flight, see the interview (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v20n2_mcintosh.asp) with Prof. Andy McIntosh, an expert in aerodynamics. Especially in this case there are several problems: A flap in the forward direction would have the effect of pushing the bird backwards by the reaction. In a flap for powered flight, the primary flight feathers are angled in such a way that they force air backwards so the bird is propelled forwards. The wings have an aerofoil shape like an airplane’s wings, so that forward motion makes air flow faster over the top surface than the bottom. This lowers the pressure on the upper surface by the Bernoulli Principle, resulting in lift. This is the main lift generator, although there is some lift produced by the reaction of air directed downwards (Newton’s Third Law of Motion).
Limbs that flap at a prey animal are the last place it would be advantageous to have delicate structures like feathers.
Since the purpose of the wings is to force air backwards so the bird is propelled forwards, they should form a wide surface that has high air resistance, so it can move large volumes of air. But for a limb designed to grab forward at prey, it’s an advantage to have a surface that has low air resistance, i.e. lets air through easily. Think of the holes in a fly swat, or streamlined shapes designed to move through the air as opposed to moving the air itself.BTW I like your current icon a lot better :yipee:

[Vorkosigan]

Socrates, the article you posted doesn't address the point at issue. The Australian article speculated that the flight stroke originated as a prey-grasping motion.

This powerful, flapping motion has today become an important part of the flight stroke in modern birds.

The AIG article says that this is impossible because it wouldn't work with wings. Probably true, but the first article never claimed that the stroke originated on animals with wings -- only with arms, and a special bone that enabled their arms to be folded against their bodies. You need to find an article more on point.

Vorkosigan

[Socrates]

Vork has no idea of what he speaks. The AiG article pointed out that a foreward grasping stroke is the OPPOSITE of what flight requires. Maybe he needs to join Saddam in exile :bonk:

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 11:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45873#post45873)
Jimmy Higgins:

Concentrate people. This thread is on the improbable event of the Flood creating the condition as described in Cuyahoga County. This isn't about degree mills, or ICR or AIG having PhD's. This is about Cuyahoga County. SO can I please have someone explain how the "Great" Flood managed to do what I explained?

I emailed a friend of mine who's a creation geologist with your post, I'll see what he says when he gets a chance to answer. Sorry, he's a little more qualified in geology than me.

[WinAce]

I used to be a village-dweller, but live in the city now. It was more fun being a village atheist, though.

[AtheistArchon]

- "Creation geologist". As if geology needed a qualifier. It's not real geology, it's "creation geology". :brow:

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 03:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46307#post46307)
AtheistArchon:

- "Creation geologist". As if geology needed a qualifier. It's not real geology, it's "creation geology". :brow:

I'm sorry was someone talking? Anyway, He's a creationist and a geologist.... hence creation geologist. :no:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46151#post46151)
Bill the Cat:
I emailed a friend of mine who's a creation geologist with your post, I'll see what he says when he gets a chance to answer. Sorry, he's a little more qualified in geology than me. I look foward to it. Should prove interesting.

As for me, I guess I'm in the field of "atheistic geotechnical engineering".

:yipee:

[Bald Ape]

03-26-2003 @ 12:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45404#post45404)
Bill the Cat:

Funny, the Earth doesn't look billions of years old to me!! So how does one evaluate the age of the Earth anyway without something CONCRETE the same age to compare it against? Don't give me radioactivity or sedement or fossil records either. They all can be discounted by the Creationist point of view. If Evolution and the Old Earth idea were so proven, they would be called LAWS, like gravity, but ooooh, hang on, they are called THEORIES!! Meaning yet to be proven FACT, like I see so many here posting.
Oops! The second half of your post got cut off. You know, the part where you explain why the bedrock formation in Cuyahoga County has characteristics exactly matching what one would expect after millions of years of uniform geographic activity, and not at all matching what one could fathom for any plausible catastrophic process. Please edit your post, including said explanation.

Or wait, were you just shooting off your mouth?

EDIT: Sorry, I missed this post of yours:
I emailed a friend of mine who's a creation geologist with your post, I'll see what he says when he gets a chance to answer. Sorry, he's a little more qualified in geology than me.

I, like JH, am very interested in what the response will be.

[tgamble]

03-26-2003 @ 06:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45177#post45177)
Socrates:

As if a misotheist like Goochdad, who is not a geologist anyway, would care whether a Christian believes in an alleged "trickster god" anyway. Rather, a REAL trickster God would be one who told us one thing in Genesis but did the opposite!!

And that's exactly the kind of God you believe in!

God is not the one who deceives; rather, the misotheists deceive THEMSELVES by refusing to believe the clear history He has revealed in favor of circumstantial evidence.

Nothing deceptive about accepting what the evidence clearly testifies to.

And he expects creationists in Australia to answer detailed questions about some obscure geology in Ohio. There would probably be come creationist geologists in the USA who could show where this fits in with various stages of the Flood and its aftermaths.


Nobody at ICR has been able to fit the flood myth into geologic reallity,

Strange how evolutionists claim that a particular creationist should be able to answer every claimed anomaly, but of course won't abandon their evolutionary faith in the face of gaping unsolved problems.

No such thing as evoluionary faith.

Obviously you're unable to answer the question. That's because a flood can't explain the geologic features. The global flood is a myth!

[tgamble]

Nope. The age of the earth was determined independent of evolution. Radiometric dating is an independent test that stands regardless of whether or not evolution is true.

[QUOTE]Creationists explain to the misguided Evolutionists that this is creation by God to serve that function.

But the misguided creationists don't bother with supporting evidence.

They just claim to be so d superior for no reason other than outright arrogance and blind faith in their religious myths. Nothing but a lot of unsupported rubbish about the creation myth being an eyewitness account!

For it not to be a fallacy, you (collective you) would have to prove the assertion that God did this with the intention of deceiving, thereby denying His omniscience.

He created an earth that looks billions of years old yet claims (according to an archaic myth anyway interpreted by creationists) that the earth is young

Funny, the Earth doesn't look billions of years old to me!!

Funny, it does to geologists not blinded by religious dogma. It looked old to Christian geologists 200 years ago.

So how does one evaluate the age of the Earth anyway without something CONCRETE the same age to compare it against? Don't give me radioactivity or sedement or fossil records either. They all can be discounted by the Creationist point of view.

Only by ignoring and lying about them.

If Evolution and the Old Earth idea were so proven, they would be called LAWS, like gravity, but ooooh, hang on, they are called THEORIES!!

Yup, like CELL THEORY and ATOMIC THEORY A theory is a well supported explanation in science. Supported with evidence.

Perhaps that's why AIG has given up the "only a theory" lie and replaced it with "it doesn't have enough evidence to be a theory" lie instead.

Edited to remove profanity

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 04:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47290#post47290)
Bald Ape:


Oops! The second half of your post got cut off. You know, the part where you explain why the bedrock formation in Cuyahoga County has characteristics exactly matching what one would expect after millions of years of uniform geographic activity, and not at all matching what one could fathom for any plausible catastrophic process. Please edit your post, including said explanation.

Or wait, were you just shooting off your mouth?



Wow, are all atheists this condescending? I have been nothing but nice (tried humor, but that flopped) and I get reamed? What gives?

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 05:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47308#post47308)
Bill the Cat:
Wow, are all atheists this condescending? I have been nothing but nice (tried humor, but that flopped) and I get reamed? What gives?

Hmm, I'm trying to read your opening post in a different light, but I'm honestly not seeing it. Somebody started a thread requesting a young-earth interpretation of an observation. Us "Old earthers" are often accused of having a naturalistic bias which forces us to categorically overlook anything but "old earth" interprettations for observations in nature. The thread-starter was simply asking for the overlooked young-earth explanation. Your initial response not only failed to offer such an explanation, but used patronizing phrases like "ooooh", UNECESSARY CAPS, and inappropriately placed exclamation marks!!, all of which struck me as markedly condescending to the thread originator.

However, you may notice the apology that I added almost immediately after submitting my post. I was quite surprised to hear that you are planning on tracking down the young-earth explanation for the bedrock formation, and I look forward to it. My condescension was aimed only at what appeared to me to be a contentless, flaming, hit-and-run style post. I retract it, and hope you will accept my apology.

[Bill the Cat]

No problem, and accept my apology if I was in any way less than sincere or pleasant. And By the way, my typing sucks.:tongue:

Why can't we all just get along like this without going into instant attack mode. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't be pleasant to each other

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 06:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47340#post47340)
Bill the Cat:
Why can't we all just get along like this without going into instant attack mode.That is true. Both sides seem to attack quickly, but its more usually about frustration than any spite. If we give time and respect all will be well.
Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't be pleasant to each other This is a problem I have. I am a career Geotechnical Engineer. I have experience classifying soils and rocks. I know of the specific geologic issues where I live. Yet usually, whenever I bring up the issues, I never ever get a serious response. Socretes, who claims a young earth wouldn't answer on the grounds that he is ignorant of Ohio geology, but was surely glad to give links from AIG, completely ignoring whatever authority I have in the field. This attitude I and other old earthers get grows old quickly. After long hard research and experience, to have such information disregarded and then have AIG links posted in response is annoying. This is what usually causes the attacks to begin.

But please understand, we get that way mainly because people gravely ignorant in certain fields think they can just spout out exotic claims in those fields without having to defend against someone who is very well educated and experienced in that field. Such actions are childish.

[gladiatrix]

03-26-2003 @ 06:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45177#post45177)
Socrates:

God is not the one who deceives; rather, the misotheists deceive THEMSELVES by refusing to believe the clear history He has revealed in favor of circumstantial evidence. /snip preaching, unscientific BS/


The Flood story is a falsifiable claim, just using the history of other cultures and the archeological record......

The Biblical flood didn't happen. This is a falsifiable date.The Bible gives the date of the flood as beginning 2345 B.C. and ending in 2344 B.C. If this were really the world-wide gig claimed by creationists then the civilizations of the world would all show a disruption in their history or at least take note of such an event, but does the rest of archeology/history corroborate the Biblical account===> NO!!! The city of Ur of the Chaldees (ancient Sumer, location of the "plains of Shinar", hangout of Noah) was the leading city from about 2400 B.C. until about 2,285 B.C. and its history is not broken by any flood in this period. Babylon was rising to power from about 2,400 B.C. on and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who would have been a contemporry Hebrew patriarch Abraham (about 2,250 B.C.), and again there is no break in this history due to a flood. In Egypt, the Eleventh Dynasty, which began to reign about 2,375 BCE, was followed by the Twelfth Dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 BCE. This time-period is very well-documented and there was no disruption during the Eleventh Dynasty at the time of Noah's flood, 2,345 BCE, with he nation remaining strong and powerful throughout these dynasties The Harappan Civilization(2300 - 1900 BCE) in India (http://www.atributetohinduism.com/articles_aryan_invasion_theory/2.htm) shows no disruptions at the time of the Flood and, ironically, appears to have ended because of a region-wide drought! (some used to think that an invasion was the cause, but the evidence points away from this earlier scenario). Chinese history begins nearly 3,000 BCE. The Shu-King historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 BCE and ruled China for many years after the flood. Incidentally, durring the reign of Yao, the Shu King reports that the Hwang Ho River flooded on a number of times, for three generations, again with NO break in history. Ancient civilizations in India (http://www.hinduismtoday.com/1994/12/1994-12-03.html) which predate the Bible entirely and show no evidence that such an event ever happened ( appearance of the oldest book of the Hindu religion, the Rig Veda (http://www.2think.org/vedas.shtml) pre-dates the Bible considerably, according to astronomical dating provided by astronomical events listed in the Rig Veda)

Let's also mention here that the Biblical Flood story looks a lot like the Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm) "The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Bablylonian God Ea had decided to eliminate humans and other land animals with a great flood which was to become 'the end of all flesh'". The Jews were captives of the Babylonians and would have been very familiar with this tale and simply just have incorporated elements into their theology.

More Possible Sources of the Flood Story (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm)

The Bible loses another one as a history book (based on the conflicts with the archeological record) and the above is by NO MEANS and exhaustive list!
:rofl:http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/monster1.gif
:rofl:

[Bill the Cat]

Jimmy,
Sorry it's taking so long, my friend is out on a dig right now, so I'm told. He'll answer as soon as he can.

[Bill the Cat]

And I think one of the other things is our lack of patience when someone disagrees. If we are gentlemen when we disagree (or ladies whichever the case may be) we will be able to present our arguments in a rational non-conflicing tone. We Christians laud our free agency to be able to choose God, but call atheists stupid for using their free agency and not choosing God. Why???

[Socrates]

Socrates:

God is not the one who deceives; rather, the misotheists deceive THEMSELVES by refusing to believe the clear history He has revealed in favor of circumstantial evidence.
Gladiatrix wrote:
/snip preaching, unscientific BS/That would remove most of her emotional ranting :rant: :tongue:

For goodness sake, is the best this misotheist can find those bozos from religious tolerance (which is really ? front for bigoted INTOLERANCE of Biblical Christianity).

G:
The Flood story is a falsifiable claim, just using the history of other cultures and the archeological record......

The Biblical flood didn't happen. This is a falsifiable date.The Bible gives the date of the flood as beginning 2345 B.C. and ending in 2344 B.C. That's about right.If this were really the world-wide gig claimed by creationists then the civilizations of the world would all show a disruption in their history or at least take note of such an event, but does the rest of archeology/history corroborate the Biblical account===> NO!!!Depends on your ASSUMPTIONS about their dates, which are VERY flimsy.[list]In Egypt, the Eleventh Dynasty, which began to reign about 2,375 BCE, was followed by the Twelfth Dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 BCE. This time-period is very well-documented and there was no disruption during the Eleventh Dynasty at the time of Noah's flood, 2,345 BCE, with he nation remaining strong and powerful throughout these dynastiesSee how ludicrous these Egyptian dates are, relying as they do on assuming that CONCURRENT dynasties were CONSECUTIVE. Many of the other Middle-eastern civilisations are NOT dated independently but by correlating with Egyptian dates. See Searching for Moses (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_moses.asp), as well as the secular books James, P. et al., Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of the Old World Archaeology, Rutgers University Press, 1991; Rohl, D., A Test of Time, Century Ltd, London, 1995.

Chinese history begins nearly 3,000 BCE. The Shu-King historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 BCE and ruled China for many years after the flood. Incidentally, durring the reign of Yao, the Shu King reports that the Hwang Ho River flooded on a number of times, for three generations, again with NO break in history.

How pathetic to rely on the morons at Religious Tolerance -- However, the New Encyclopædia Britannica says on China (‘China’, EB 3:230, 15th Ed. 1992):

The first dynasty for which there is definite historical material is the Shang, or Yin (18th–12th century BC).
G:
Let's also mention here that the Biblical Flood story looks a lot like the Epic of Gilgamesh "The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Bablylonian God Ea had decided to eliminate humans and other land animals with a great flood which was to become 'the end of all flesh'". The Jews were captives of the Babylonians and would have been very familiar with this tale and simply just have incorporated elements into their theology.So WHO borrowed from WHOM??? How does she know that it's not the other way round? Or perhaps there is a common traditional core (even if Flank is right about the Flood from a historical basis, which we say he is not)? The Babylonian story has a boat shaped like a cube (which would roll all over the place), versus the barge shape of the Ark (whose dimensions mean that if the wood was only a foot thick, it could not be capsized even by waves several times higher than typical tsunamis (see here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_arksafety.asp). This is strong indication that the Genesis account is original, but as legends grew, the Ark became a cube because this has only one dimension to remember. See also The Floods of Noah and Gilgamesh (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-285.htm)G:
The Bible loses another one as a history book (based on the conflicts with the archeological record) and the above is by NO MEANS and exhaustive list!More elephant hurling from someone who knows naught of what she speaks!

[Socrates]

Bill the Cat should not fall for Jimmy Higgins' pretence at being reasonable. I tried to be reasonable to him, by explaining that his posting crass anti-Christian stuff on his website would undermine his ethos, but he didn't care. Right, so now I don't assume that he's an honest debater but rather someone who has an anti-Christian axe to grind and who resorts to childish attacks.

And on Politics he's been spouting the "Hitler was a Christian" smear that he dredged up from one of the atheist gutter sites that wallow in the danker hovels of the Internet. If he is so crass and misinformed in areas I CAN check, why should I trust him in areas that I can't readily check?

This is a problem I have. I am a career Geotechnical Engineer. I have experience classifying soils and rocks. I know of the specific geologic issues where I live. Yes, of soil and rock COMPOSITION, but he did NOT see them form!Yet usually, whenever I bring up the issues, I never ever get a serious response. Socretes, who claims a young earth wouldn't answer on the grounds that he is ignorant of Ohio geology, Of course, I never claimed to be a geologist, and it was absurd to expect me to comment on geology on the other side of the world from me. ... but was surely glad to give links from AIG, completely ignoring whatever authority I have in the field.Of course, since JH has NO authority since he did NOT see them form, and he wilfully ignores the One who did! This attitude I and other old earthers get grows old quickly.As does the attitude of YECs when they fight the same tired old misinformation, e.g. "all change is evolution", "Noah would have had to take millions of species on board the Ark", "Creationists take the whole Bible literally". After long hard research and experience, to have such information disregarded and then have AIG links posted in response is annoying. [/list]The AiG articles are usually written by more highly qualified scientists than JH!!But please understand, we get that way mainly because people gravely ignorant in certain fields think they can just spout out exotic claims in those fields without having to defend against someone who is very well educated and experienced in that field. Rather, JH spouted out an exotic claim about geology that is obscure to anyone outside the area. Such actions are childish. I.e. just believe me because I know best, over the Ph.D. creationist geologists who would know far more about geology than an engineer!

And it works both ways -- I have provided evidence against chemical evolution aka "abiogenesis", yet a number of non-chemists and even non-scientists like tgamble maintain their blind faith in it. Of course because the only alternative is CREATION and we can't have that can we because it would mean we are ACCOUNTABLE to the Creator!!

Also JH is happy to spout on about Biblical exegesis and current events (wearing his other hat as one of the heads of Saddam's cheer squad), in which he hasn't the slightest qualifications. But I'm used to evolutionists ranting :rant: against creationists who allegedly speak outside their fields, while being happy to do the same! And complaining about the mildest aggression from creationists, as JH did to me, while ignoring the vicious inflammaroty bilge emanating from tgamble.

[kiwimac]

(Edited by moderator for content)
said

Also JH is happy to spout on about Biblical exegesis and current events (wearing his other hat as one of the heads of Saddam's cheer squad), in which he hasn't the slightest qualifications.

But I'm used to evolutionists ranting against creationists who allegedly speak outside their fields, while being happy to do the same! And complaining about the mildest aggression from creationists, as JH did to me, while ignoring the vicious inflammaroty bilge emanating from tgamble.

Goodness me Succotash, what a lot of rubbish you do talk. Just because someone's POV differs from yours, you go out of your way to attack them every chance you get & I imagine you believe you are doing God a favour in this.

What a twit!

Kiwimac

[Socrates]

One day KatipoMac might spare some time from the Saddam cheer squad to study something before he spruiks forth thoughtlessly. Typical of his small-island mentality I guess.

[tgamble]

Today @ 10:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48427#post48427)
Socrates:
As does the attitude of YECs when they fight the same tired old misinformation, e.g. "all change is evolution",

Never been claimed Liar. Change in a gene pool IS Evolution. Get over it. Creationists do accept this but add imaginary limits to the change and ignore the facts that don't fit with their dogma.

"Noah would have had to take millions of species on board the Ark",

Which is true, no matter how much creationists want to pretend that kind = family or genus or whatever. Totally ignoring that kind is obviously species in the bible since species (by definition) would be the only group to reproduce after their "kind". You ignore this of course.

Or that fish/plants/whales etc. could survive. Or no matter how they want to ignore and wave away with the most ridiculous nonsense ever all the problems with the flood myth.

"Creationists take the whole Bible literally".

Except for that parts that not even they are stupid enough to believe!

After long hard research and experience, to have such information disregarded and then have AIG links posted in response is annoying.

Coming from someone who rejects 200 years of long hard research this is hilarious!

What AIG posts in response is a lot of rubbish that ignores reality.

[/list]The AiG articles are usually written by more highly qualified scientists than JH!!

The old argument from authority again. Writen by someone who rejects the authority of thousands of scientsits over the last 200 years and blindly accepts the rants of antiscience religious zealots at aIG instead who don't do science but instead pretend an arcahic myth is the truth and then twist, distort, fabricate and ignore data that doesn't fit. What a pathetic joke!:argh: :bonk:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 05:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48427#post48427)
Socrates:
Bill the Cat should not fall for Jimmy Higgins' pretence at being reasonable. I tried to be reasonable to him, by explaining that his posting crass anti-Christian stuff on his website would undermine his ethos, but he didn't care.I wasn't aware you were so hateful of nature photgraphy. I personally love Bruce Trail and waterfalls. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way. Or perhaps you are against all those triathlon links I've got, granted, they are now out of date, being 2002, but I'm sure the clubs all still work. Maybe you didn't like my Honda Insight and how I've gotten over 100 mpgs in it. With nothing being anymore unAmerican as being efficient.
Right, so now I don't assume that he's an honest debater but rather someone who has an anti-Christian axe to grind and who resorts to childish attacks.Do childish attacks include going over head and heals for you to provide a reference? Have I resorted to name calling? Have I resorted to any sort of personal attack on what you've said?

Or was it you that called me childish names. Ignored anything I offered with geology because ~"you don't live in Ohio". You ignore any person who doesn't share your worldview and I think your demeanor in here is worse than childish. I don't understand why you even bother posting because you obviously couldn't be enjoying it, having to be so spiteful, or perhaps that is why you are here.
And on Politics he's been spouting the "Hitler was a Christian" smear that he dredged up from one of the atheist gutter sites that wallow in the danker hovels of the Internet.Mein Kampf is Mein Kampf. Hitler says it in Mein Kampf. I'm sorry, but most Christian sites don't really advertise having that source.
If he is so crass and misinformed in areas I CAN check, why should I trust him in areas that I can't readily check?My last words to you Socretes, grow up. I don't need to go down to your level. I'm happy up here. You can stay down where you are.

[tgamble]

Not to drag this off topic but if Hitler was a Christian

So the l what? Who cares? It says nothing at all about other Christians and it says nothing about Christianity. Why is it such a big freaking deal?

Edited to remove profanity

[Bald Ape]

What could possibly be delaying Socrates' response to the OP?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bill the Cat: Irregardless of Socretes' rants, I am still anticipating your friends response. I realize it will take time, but I just wanted to emphasize that my interest has not fallen off. I still look forward to the response.

[Socratism]

Which is true, no matter how much creationists want to pretend that kind = family or genus or whatever. Totally ignoring that kind is obviously species in the bible since species (by definition) would be the only group to reproduce after their "kind". You ignore this of course.

Just as you ignore the fact that this is not the sole definition of species accepted by most professional evolutionists today.

You also ignore the mechanism which evolutionists accept as how "biological" species come about, which is variation and reproductive isolation, a process that can occur very rapidly in founder populations such as would have been the general rule following the Flood. It is only when populations become large and become restrained by other equally numerous competitors that variation [speciation] will slow and stabilize.

The design characteristic of sexual reproduction (an enigma for evolutionists) is ideally suited for survival in rapidly changing environments: a brilliant design feature indeed.

[tgamble]

Today @ 09:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48676#post48676)
Socratism:

Just as you ignore the fact that this is not the sole definition of species accepted by most professional evolutionists today.


You know of one that's any better for you? Show me a biologist who claims that two groups that CANNOT interbreed are a single species. Show me a biologist who would dispute that a group that can breed fertile offspring is a single species.

You also ignore the mechanism which evolutionists accept as how "biological" species come about, which is variation and reproductive isolation, a process that can occur very rapidly in founder populations such as would have been the general rule following the Flood.

You miss the point. The variation (if you assume kind = family) would be very large, impossible in such a short period of time and undisputably MACROevolution.

Of course, such arguments are merely academic in nature. The flood never happened so arguments about Noah's ark and post flood events are completely pointless.

The design characteristic of sexual reproduction (an enigma for evolutionists) is ideally suited for survival in rapidly changing environments: a brilliant design feature indeed.

Tell that to the dinosaurs.

[gladiatrix]

Socrates said in this Post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=48425#post48425) when: For goodness sake, is the best this misotheist can find those bozos from religious tolerance (which is really ? front for bigoted INTOLERANCE of Biblical Christianity).

And your evidence that they are bigoted is???? It would seem that you are alleging that these sites can't be trusted simply because they may not agree with your hard-line literal interpretation, You give absolutely NO support for your allegation of "bigotry" so I am going to take it that you have none. This type of argument is a fallacy known as "poisoning the well" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html). This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. The "unfavorable" aspect implied here is that are "bigoted". How "bigoted"? An allegation does NOT an argument make! (well that's all you have, so I guess I really can't blame you for using insult instead of a reasoned, documented argument...)

It doesn't matter who relates the information IF that information is true. For instance, if Ted Bundy discovered the cure for cancer, the fact that he is also a serial murderer doesn't mean that his cure for cancer is invalid. Similarly an "infidel" can relate accurate information about Christianity (let's assume that the contributors to religioustolerance.org are all "infidels"). If that information is not accurate, it is your job to show how that information was in error and the fact that an "infidel" was the conduit for that information is not, of itself, a reason to regard the information as invalid. All your " least one manditoraly coming from infidel.org" this says to me is that you regard all non-believers to be untrustworthy....a very arrogant position and one very repulsive characteristic of some Christians (the assumption that only they can be trusted to tell the truth).

Socrates said in when:Gladiatrix said:

If this were really the world-wide gig claimed by creationists then the civilizations of the world would all show a disruption in their history or at least take note of such an event, but does the rest of archeology/history corroborate the Biblical account===> NO!!!
In Egypt, the Eleventh Dynasty, which began to reign about 2,375 BCE, was followed by the Twelfth Dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 BCE. This time-period is very well-documented and there was no disruption during the Eleventh Dynasty at the time of Noah's flood, 2,345 BCE, with he nation remaining strong and powerful throughout these dynasties

Depends on your ASSUMPTIONS about their dates, which are VERY flimsy.

See how ludicrous these Egyptian dates are, relying as they do on assuming that CONCURRENT dynasties were CONSECUTIVE. Many of the other Middle-eastern civilisations are NOT dated independently but by correlating with Egyptian dates. See Searching for Moses (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_moses.asp)

Here is what your site gives as the excuse (not a reason but an excuse and one unsupported by ANY archeological data:
EXCERPT: (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_moses.asp)By the traditional chronology of Egyptian history the 18th dynasty ruled from about 1550 to 1320 BC. According to Bible chronology the Exodus occurred about 1446 BC. But there is no evidence from 18th dynasty Egyptian records of a major disaster such as would have resulted from the 10 devastating plagues that fell on Egypt, or of the destruction of the Egyptian army during this period. Nor is there archaeological evidence for an invasion of Palestine under Joshua during this period.

The solution to this problem is a recognition that the chronology of Egypt needs to be reduced by centuries, bringing the 12th dynasty down to the time of Moses and the Exodus. When this is done there is found abundant evidence for the presence of large numbers of Semitic slaves at the time of Moses, the devastation of Egypt and the sudden departure of these slaves.

Notice how even they are forced to admit that no evidence for Moses/Exodus actually exists. Because the archeological record doesn't "fit" the Biblical dates for Exodus, AIG's solution is to ARBITRARIALLY "reduce" the dates to make them conform to the Biblical ones!!!! Not once in the entire article is ANY archeological data presented that would justify such an ad hoc "reduction"!! AIG's Bullwinkle's Fractured Fairy Tale illogic seems to go like this:
The Bible is absolutely true and accurate (the "***TRUTH™***" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp))

The archeological record does not conform to our PRE-ASSumed notion of the "TRUTH™". We have sworn to ignore any and all evidence that contradicts our presumptions and reject these dates.

Therefore, we, the pseudo-scientists of the AIG, in our unwisdom, have decided to simply deny these dates and rearrange them to comform to our PRE-ASSumed version of the "TRUTH™"

AIG, in their best Treasure of the Sierra Madre (http://www.filmsite.org/trea3.html) bandito voice, are in effect saying here:

" Archeological evidence? We ain't got no evidence! We don't need no evidencess-ss!!! I don't have to show you any stinkin' evidencessss!!!!!!!!

Welcome to the Bizarro World (http://www.toonopedia.com/bizarro1.htm) of AIG pseudo-archeology!!!!

-------Off-topic on the subject of Moses-------
BTW, here are some of my rebuttals to the Mose/Exodus fairy tales, since that was the focus of the AIG article

Problems with the Exodus/Moses Story in General (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=718736#post718736)

Part 2 (of 3 on Moses): (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=698664#post698664)Problems with Rohl's Evidence for Moses

Part 3 (of 3 on Moses): (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=698680#post698680) Problems with Rohl's Evidence for Moses

Part 1: (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=716853#post716853) Problems with Who was Moses? Aired on the Discovery Channel

Part2: (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=716872#post716872) More Problems with Who was Moses? Aired on the Discovery Channel
-----------

as well as the secular books James, P. et al., Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of the Old World Archaeology, Rutgers University Press, 1991; Rohl, D., A Test of Time, Century Ltd, London, 1995.

And just what parts of these books supports a complete revision of the archeological record according to the above references???? Just posting references WITHOUT laying out relevant arguments from each of them is absolutely worthless as a rebuttal! And NO! I won't go to them to check out YOUR claims (you mak'em, you prove'm! I'm not about to do your homework for you!)

Socrates responded when:Gladiatrix said:
Chinese history begins nearly 3,000 BCE. The Shu-King historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 BCE and ruled China for many years after the flood.
How pathetic to rely on the morons at Religious Tolerance -- However, the New Encyclopædia Britannica says on China (‘China’, EB 3:230, 15th Ed. 1992):
“
The first dynasty for which there is definite historical material is the Shang, or Yin (18th–12th century BC)."

First, the jokes on you.I didn't use religioustolerance.org as a reference on this one, but one like THIS (http://www.chinapage.com/history/dyna4.html) timeline. The only place you find these early rulers listed are at Chinese sites (spelled Tangyao, Westerners shorten this to Yao).

Second, the online EB shows you to be the usual variety of quote-mining creationist liar, as can be seen from this from the History of China (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=385911&query=china&ct=gen1):

Chinese civilization probably spread from the Huang He (Yellow River) valley, where it existed c. 3000 BC. The first dynasty for which there is definite historical material is the Shang (c. 17th century BC), which had a writing system and a calendar. The Zhou, a subject state of the Shang, overthrew its Shang rulers in the 11th century BC and ruled until the 3rd century BC.

Do note the date of 3000 BCE. I was not referring to the Shang dynasty, but to those rulers before them. There is no escape for you here. Chinese history did NOT begin with the Shang dynasty (best documented part, but not the beginning)


Incidentally, I noticed that you totally ignored the Hindu societies of India, which are older still !

Regarding the idea that the Jews borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh

So WHO borrowed from WHOM??? How does she know that it's not the other way round?

1. For the simple reason that the first copies of this legend are in were written down about 2000 BCE in the Sumerian language on clay tablets (http://www.piney.com/Gil01.html) which still survive. The earliest possible date for the writing of the Hebrew version is given as around 1000 BCE (according to THIS (http://users.rcn.com/lanat/biblehistory.htm).

2. Also consider that the Jews were the captives of the Babylonians who inherited this tale from their Sumerian/Akkadian forebearers. Who do you think copied whom? It is far more likely that the Jews copied from their conquerors as opposed to a conquering race coping from a slave population.

And; your argument(s) for the reverse case is(are)????? (A "what if" doesn't qualify as an argument).

As for the real source of many flood stories, the most likely one is that detailed HERE (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea) in the article from the National Geographic, The Black Sea and the Search for Noah's Flood. At catastrophic Black See flood is the most probable source of the story and it is no where near a world-wide flood as alleged in the Bible!!


More elephant hurling from someone who knows naught of what she speaks!

Looks like you hurling the "elephants" of creationist denials (redaction of the archeological record to make it "fit" the Bible), quote-mining, insult and bombast to me!

The Story of the Creationist, Socrates on the Titanic aka the "good ship" Creationism
http://www.clicksmilie.de/sammlung/spezial/Fool/tit.gif

[AtheistArchon]

- Oo, is a gladiatrix what I think it is? :whip: :xmm:

[Socrates]

Gladiatrix hypocritically squeals:
And your evidence that they are bigoted is???? It would seem that you are alleging that these sites can't be trusted simply because they may not agree with your hard-line literal interpretation, You give absolutely NO support for your allegation of "bigotry" so I am going to take it that you have none. This type of argument is a fallacy known as "poisoning the well".After her bad language and inflammatory accusations against Christians in general creationists in particular? And of course, G doesn't just disagree with my allegedly "hard-line literal interpretation", but rejects the Bible outright.

G:All your " least one manditoraly coming from infidel.org" this says to me is that you regard all non-believers to be untrustworthy....a very arrogant position and one very repulsive characteristic of some Christians (the assumption that only they can be trusted to tell the truth).Yet again, G was the one who brazenly accused creationists of lying ... My point is that unbelievers have no objective moral basis for refraining from lying. Evolution can select only for survival advantage, not moral rightness. But those who follow the One who is The Truth (John 14:6) have every reason under theor own word view to be truthful.

G then squeaks:

Here is what your site gives as the excuse (not a reason but an excuse and one unsupported by ANY archeological data:
EXCERPT:By the traditional chronology of Egyptian history the 18th dynasty ruled from about 1550 to 1320 BC. According to Bible chronology the Exodus occurred about 1446 BC. But there is no evidence from 18th dynasty Egyptian records of a major disaster such as would have resulted from the 10 devastating plagues that fell on Egypt, or of the destruction of the Egyptian army during this period. Nor is there archaeological evidence for an invasion of Palestine under Joshua during this period.

The solution to this problem is a recognition that the chronology of Egypt needs to be reduced by centuries, bringing the 12th dynasty down to the time of Moses and the Exodus. When this is done there is found abundant evidence for the presence of large numbers of Semitic slaves at the time of Moses, the devastation of Egypt and the sudden departure of these slaves.

Notice how even they are forced to admit that no evidence for Moses/Exodus actually exists. Because the archeological record doesn't "fit" the Biblical dates for Exodus, AIG's solution is to ARBITRARIALLY "reduce" the dates to make them conform to the Biblical ones!!!! Not once in the entire article is ANY archeological data presented that would justify such an ad hoc "reduction"!! Rubbish. The whole point is that there is AMPLE archeoogical data, and that the Bible should be regarded as historically reliable unless proven otherwise. But skeptics treat the Bible as guilty until proven innocent. In fact, it is the unsound Manetho-inspired Egyptian chronology is out of synch with historical data because of the inflated dates.

Then Gladiatrix, who whinges at the slightest aggression from creationists, inflames:
Second, the online EB shows you to be the usual variety of quote-mining creationist liar, as can be seen from this from the History of China:

Chinese civilization probably spread from the Huang He (Yellow River) valley, where it existed c. 3000 BC. The first dynasty for which there is definite historical material is the Shang (c. 17th century BC), which had a writing system and a calendar. The Zhou, a subject state of the Shang, overthrew its Shang rulers in the 11th century BC and ruled until the 3rd century BC.

Do note the date of 3000 BCE. I was not referring to the Shang dynasty, but to those rulers before them. There is no escape for you here. Chinese history did NOT begin with the Shang dynasty (best documented part, but not the beginning)I did notice the date, and that it was not supported by real historical data. The "definite historical material" is the Shang (c. 17th century BC).
Regarding the idea that the Jews borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh
So WHO borrowed from WHOM??? How does she know that it's not the other way round?

1. For the simple reason that the first copies of this legend are in were written down about 2000 BCE in the Sumerian language on clay tablets which still survive. The earliest possible date for the writing of the Hebrew version is given as around 1000 BCE (according to THIS. Actually, according to leading archaeologist W.F. Albright, the Hebrew of Genesis has incredibly ancient features. 2. Also consider that the Jews were the captives of the Babylonians who inherited this tale from their Sumerian/Akkadian forebearers. Who do you think copied whom? It is far more likely that the Jews copied from their conquerors as opposed to a conquering race coping from a slave population.Rather, as people migrated from Babel, they took the real account of the Flood with them, which was preserved in Genesis. But the pagan Babylonians corrupted this historical account.
list]G:
And; your argument(s) for the reverse case is(are)????? (A "what if" doesn't qualify as an argument).[/list]I already gave you some, e.g. the Ark dimensions.
G:
As for the real source of many flood stories, the most likely one is that detailed HERE in the article from the National Geographic, The Black Sea and the Search for Noah's Flood. At catastrophic Black See flood is the most probable source of the story and it is no where near a world-wide flood as alleged in the Bible!!First, this could not possibly have inspired Noah's Flood, because it is too different, as shown at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp. Rather, the "Noah's Flood" connection was simply to sell more books!

Second, this Black Sea Flood "evidence" has been discredited by even secular geologists www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1211tj.asp

[gladiatrix]

Today @ 05:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49050#post49050)
AtheistArchon:

- Oo, is a gladiatrix what I think it is? :whip: :xmm:

No, gladiatrix is a female gladiator. This is from an A&E special on the Roman games where they presented evidence that women gladiators (gladiatrices, gladiatrix singular) were on the play-bill.

What I believe you are thinking of is a dominatrix.

[Socrates]

Socrates:
Bill the Cat should not fall for Jimmy Higgins' pretence at being reasonable. I tried to be reasonable to him, by explaining that his posting crass anti-Christian stuff on his website would undermine his ethos, but he didn't care.

JH limply responds:
I wasn't aware you were so hateful of nature photgraphy.I wasn't aware that you were THIS much in need of remedial reading comprehension lessons. I personally love Bruce Trail and waterfalls. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.I do. THOSE photos are great. Or perhaps you are against all those triathlon links I've got, granted, they are now out of date, being 2002, but I'm sure the clubs all still work. Maybe you didn't like my Honda Insight and how I've gotten over 100 mpgs in it. With nothing being anymore unAmerican as being efficient. Let's just rehash our previous exchange, where Jimmy did not try to deny the crass anti-Christian comment, but instead tried to justify it (from Theology Wing » Religion 101 » Was there the Global Flood?):

Soc:
But as a word of friendly advice, be wary of putting spiteful village-atheist-style comments on a website, because then your ethos is damaged .
JH:
I find it to be a harmless release of frustration when dealing with an insane world. Sorry if you take offense to it. And I replied:Australians tend to be too thicked skinned to take offence. But we can still assess the ethos of someone who resorts to that sort of nonsense.Later on, Jimmy rebuked me for some mild insults while ignoring the vicious attacks hurled by the likes of Gamble, so I decided that Jimmy wasn't really interested in fairness.

Note that there were NO heated exchanges over Jimmy's alleged geological evidence against a great Flood. There was nothing wrong with that in itself, even though I disagree with his INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence.

And on Politics he's been spouting the "Hitler was a Christian" smear that he dredged up from one of the atheist gutter sites that wallow in the danker hovels of the Internet.

JH:
Mein Kampf is Mein Kampf. Hitler says it in Mein Kampf. And a number of us have shown how gutter atheists take this out of context, and we have amply shown how ANTI-Christian the Nazi regime was. Anyone who would resort to such a crass smear must be desperate.I'm sorry, but most Christian sites don't really advertise having that source.Nice to see who what your favorite reading matter is.
If he is so crass and misinformed in areas I CAN check, why should I trust him in areas that I can't readily check?

My last words to you Socretes, grow up. YOU grow up by removing the crass anti-Christian stuff. Anyone who uses such crass stuff is identifying HIMSELF as crass.I don't need to go down to your level. I'm happy up here. Yep, with your head in the clouds.

[Woman]

Socrates::
Yet again, G was the one who brazenly accused creationists of lying ... My point is that unbelievers have no objective moral basis for refraining from lying. Evolution can select only for survival advantage, not moral rightness. But those who follow the One who is The Truth (John 14:6) have every reason under theor own word view to be truthful.

Soc, I won't go into detail here because it's off topic. But if you're interested in developing the above statement and any conclusions you feel might flow from it, I invite you to do so. As I'm sure you already know, the statistics, crime rates, etc. comparing members of fundamentalist, evangelical churches to members of humanist organizations are mind boggling.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

Yet again, G was the one who brazenly accused creationists of lying ... My point is that unbelievers have no objective moral basis for refraining from lying. Evolution can select only for survival advantage, not moral rightness. But those who follow the One who is The Truth (John 14:6) have every reason under theor own word view to be truthful.

Woman:Soc, I won't go into detail here because it's off topic. But if you're interested in developing the above statement and any conclusions you feel might flow from it, I invite you to do so. As I'm sure you already know, the statistics, crime rates, etc. comparing members of fundamentalist, evangelical churches to members of humanist organizations are mind boggling.Many practising humanists are not members of organisations, and it's irrelevant anyway. My point is that Christians have a LOGICALLY COHERENT basis for not lying, while humanists have NO such basis. Note that I never said that humanists cannot be moral, but then they are inadvertently IMPORTING Christian ideas of right and wrong. Evolution cannot provide a basis for such concepts, since survival is the only "good" in evolution.

[AtheistArchon]

Many practising humanists are not members of organisations, and it's irrelevant anyway. My point is that Christians have a LOGICALLY COHERENT basis for not lying, while humanists have NO such basis. Note that I never said that humanists cannot be moral, but then they are inadvertently IMPORTING Christian ideas of right and wrong. Evolution cannot provide a basis for such concepts, since survival is the only "good" in evolution.

- I'll take you up on that one, Soc. Let me start a new thread over in the Religion101 forum. See you there!

[gladiatrix]

Response to Socrates Post #55 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=49061#post49061)
When asked to support his allegation that religioustolerance.org is bigoted against Christians, Socrates said
After her bad language and inflammatory accusations against Christians in general creationists in particular? And of course, G doesn't just disagree with my allegedly "hard-line literal interpretation", but rejects the Bible outright

Well instead of listing even one site from religioustolerance.org that supports the allegation he makes, he attacks me instead, in a vain attempt to change the subject. Since you refuse to support the charge you make, I am within my rights to call it a lie.

Socrates responded when:Gladiatrix said : All this says to me is that you regard all non-believers to be untrustworthy....a very arrogant position and one very repulsive characteristic of some Christians (the assumption that only they can be trusted to tell the truth).

Yet again, G was the one who brazenly accused creationists of lying ... My point is that unbelievers have no objective moral basis for refraining from lying. Evolution can select only for survival advantage, not moral rightness. But those who follow the One who is The Truth (John 14:6) have every reason under theor own word view to be truthful.

The following is off-topic, but I can't resist,.........................................

Well, another smug Christain! I just looovvve all these examples of Christian "humility"!! One of the most thoroughly obnoxious attitudes exhibited by some Christians is the notion that somehow Christianity invented and patented morality, has a monopoly on love and is the progenitor of purpose It is an attitude that is just blasting away from the above post (I wasn't going to say anything, but this was so outrageous that I couldn't let it pass without comment). Here is my "standard answer" to such hubris.....

LOVE®, PURPOSE® & MORALITY®, wholly-owned subsidiaries of the TRUE Christian ™ ( Addendum:==> Be advised that after 2 millenia, we Christians are still quarreling, often violently, over just who owns the rights to the trademark,i.e. we haven't come to a non-violent consensus on just what constitutes the TRUE Christian, thousands of variants. Stay tuned for the latest on our 2000 year history of internecine bloodshed as we try to settle this question, accompanied by a generous helping of persecuting and butchering non-Christians for the greater glory of our God!).

This attitude shows a willful ignorance, or at best, an incredibly myopic view of philosophy, world history and other religions. Nonreligious, humanistic moral systems predate Christianity: (just a few examples) 1) Epicureans, Skeptics and Stoics of classical Greece and Rome 2) The Confucians of ancient China 3) The Lokayata, India's materialist philosophers (1000 BCE)
What are called the "common moral decencies" are found in cultures throughout the world...Judeao-Christian morality is NOT UNIQUE. For instance, the principles in the Ten Commandments were laid down by Hammurabi (Code of Hammurabi) before Moses. Confucius stated the Golden Rule more than 500 years before it was attributed to Jesus. Buddha also stated a more elaborate version of the Golden Rule ("the Eight-fold Path) also more than 500 years before Christianity saw the light of day. Many of the moral teachings of Jesus were pronounced by Plato centuries earlier.

The Golden Rule, NOT A Christian "Invention"! (http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/golden.html)

The truth is that we humans are group animals and there are just some things that one cannot do if the group is to remain a cohesive unit. It simply make good sense to abide by the "common moral decencies" such as the Golden Rule (treat others with the same consideration that you have them treat you), people should not lie, steal, or kill, and they should be honest, cooperative,and generous. These principles work for the simple reason that they are conducive to human welfare(altruism works!)

1. The Evolution of Altruim (http://www.theunityofknowledge.org/the_evolution_of_altruism/title_page.htm)
2. From Where Does Morality Come? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god.html#Mor)
3. The Evolution of Morality (http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/ANTB25/SCMEDIA/Readings/irons.html)

There is absolutely no need to derive meaning for these principles from God or the supernatural. Humanity and life are of value simply because they exists. Life has only the meaning that we give it and are willing to work to achieve. It is our human values (the willingness to abide by the common moral decencies and apply them to EVERYONE) that give us rights, responsibility, and dignity. People who observe these principles for no other reason than they are convinced that it is in their best interests to do so are ultimately more reliable than those who "obey" out of fear of retribution to come and/or postmortem bribery from God (Believe in Me or Burn! My Way or the Hell Highway!<===The "Original Deal You Can't Refuse" from the Cosmic Don, the original GODfather)

Anyone who has debated the existence of God with a Christian is sure to have been presented with some variant of the following proposition:

"If God does not exist, then there is no reason not to do x " where x is some kind of crime or immorality .

I am reminded of what an Christian missionary said to me the other day, "there would be no reason for him to remain faithful to his spouse, to care for his family, not rob banks, not be a rapist, etc", if God did not exists (his God-fear keep his lusts in check). Such assertions are meant to imply that atheism is a path to evil, and Christianity a path to good. In fact, they actually prove just the opposite.

Consider the following scenario, that somehow, someone comes up with a conclusive disproof of the existence of God. What would happen to my proud-of-his-righteousness missionary if God did not exist? Why, there would no reason for him to be faithful to his wife, not commit crimes, etc.!!! So in the face of proof that God does not exist, my "religiously correct" missionary would apparently give in to whatever lusts he might feel, would wreck what should have been a close, loving family, and go on a crime spree.

How about atheists? What would a conclusive disproof of the existence of God do to my moral stature? Considering that I don't believe in God to begin with, the answer is that a disproof of the existence of God would not cause me to change my moral views at all, i.e. I will continue to observe the "common moral decencies". However, the prospect of all of those Christians released from their God-fear should fill one with great trepidation.............
-------end off-topic message---------

Socrates==>With regard to the AIG redaction of archeology to make it fit a preconceived notion
Rubbish. The whole point is that there is AMPLE archeoogical data, and that the Bible should be regarded as historically reliable unless proven otherwise. But skeptics treat the Bible as guilty until proven innocent. In fact, it is the unsound Manetho-inspired Egyptian chronology is out of synch with historical data because of the inflated dates.

The archeological evidence flatly contradicts the Bible. Your only defense is to assume that you can just rewrite the rccord to fit you preconceived notion. That is NOT science, but the opposite of science. True science does not seek to prove a hypothesis, but ot find evidence that disproves it. If no contradictory evidence is found, the hypothesis stand. In your case the evidence contradicts your postion. Your only option is to pretend that "it just ain't so"!!!

What archeological evidence do you have that justifies a complete rewrite of what the records actually say? Your whining that it contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible is not evidence of anything so you get to do something that no one else would be permitted to do is just a case of "special pleading" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html) (you expect a free pass from the rules of evidence and think you get to bend them to suit you).

When I pointed out that you quote-mined the Encyclopedia Britannica, you said:
I did notice the date, and that it was not supported by real historical data. The "definite historical material" is the Shang (c. 17th century BC).
Translation from "creationese"===>The historical facts don't support the my interpretation of the Bible, so I get to ignore it. That make you a liar.

When I pointed out that the tablets with the Epic of Gilgamesh still survived and date back to before 2000 BCE, we get this from Socrates:
Actually, according to leading archaeologist W.F. Albright, the Hebrew of Genesis has incredibly ancient features.
What ancient features would indicate that the Genesis story is older than the Sumerian one? Looks like a total non sequitur to me without further information of what these "ancient features" are and how they apply. Til then, it's another non sequitur (http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-nonsequitur.htm)

In an attempt to discredit the Black Sea Flood we get this dishonest muck form AIG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1211tj.asp)
[b]An international research team from Canada, USA, UK and Turkey is now disputing that there ever was a catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea.6,7 So, the whole idea of a Black Sea flood MAY evaporate completely.

The team used data from the ‘Marmara Sea Gateway’, which connects the Black Sea and the eastern Mediterranean (see figure). From seismic surveys, drill cores, radiocarbon dating and fossil studies they conclude that there is no support whatsoever for a catastrophic northward flow of saline Mediterranean water into the Black Sea. Rather, from the earliest times the connection was dominated by a southward flow of water, exactly the opposite direction required by Ryan and Pitman’s hypothesis.

This latest report, which illustrates how conclusions can change dramatically when new geological evidence comes to light is featured in issue 16(3) of TJ—the in-depth journal of Creation.

Notice this phrase "the whole idea of the Black Sea flood MAY evaporate" in the first paragraph. This should be a dead give away that this is not a serious issue or there would be no need for the use of such a conditional. If this notion had been refuted by the International Reseach Team's data, then there would be no reason not to come right out and say that this hypothesis HAS BEEN refuted, not that it MAY be refuted ("evaporate completely"). Typical dishonest tactic, but then I keep forgetting that "lying for God" is okay with creationists.

I personally think the creationists' motto must be:

"All the truth that's fit to twist"---Sauron. Sauron is so right!

http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/g34.gif

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 06:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49089#post49089)
Socrates:
Note that I never said that humanists cannot be moral, but then they are inadvertently IMPORTING Christian ideas of right and wrong. Evolution cannot provide a basis for such concepts, since survival is the only &quot;good&quot; in evolution.

You mean, like the Christians IMPORTED their moral ideas from the Jews, Romans, Greeks and Egyptians?

Or do you seek to suggest that Roman/Jewish/Greek/Egyptian/Christian morality has nothing in common?

Virtually all of the 'Christian morals' existed in pre-Christian times. Explain that one away.

Paul

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49089#post49089)
Socrates:

[QUOTE]My point is that Christians have a LOGICALLY COHERENT basis for not lying, while humanists have NO such basis.


Your basis is a collection of myths and fables and human made morals just like everyone else. Since you claim to have a basis for not lying, maybe you're actually STOP LYING sometime soon.

Note that I never said that humanists cannot be moral, but then they are inadvertently IMPORTING Christian ideas of right and wrong.

Christianity is hardly the sole basis for moral rules.

Evolution cannot provide a basis for such concepts, since survival is the only &quot;good&quot; in evolution.

Of course it can't! It's science. Cell theory can't do it either. So what?

Incidently, cooperation and helping is often the key to survival in nature. It's not "every animal for himself and crush the weak" that dishonest creationists like Socrates pretend.

[Jimmy Higgins]

What the heck does any of this have to do with Cuyahoga County, Bedrock elevations and the Global Flood???

I want this thread to jump back on-topic, if that is even possible.

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49475#post49475)
Jimmy Higgins:

What the heck does any of this have to do with Cuyahoga County, Bedrock elevations and the Global Flood???

I want this thread to jump back on-topic, if that is even possible.


I agree.

One of the problems I see with geology is that it consists mostly of storytelling.

Another problem in a thread like this is that evolutionists do not recognize the pitfalls in storytelling so they pose storytelling contests and challenge creationists to come up with a better story than theirs.

This is an unfair match because we recognize that esince evolutionists are highly trained in storytelling and they have been doing this for years with ample government funding. This funding permits them to avoid earning an honest living like creationists have to do and to devote their every waking minute to making up new stories and publishing them in their private magazines.

Now if the truth may be told (and forums like this are about the only place the awful truth of the poverty of evolution may be told) their is no way that storytelling should be considered doing science.

So I would encourage my Christian brothers and sisters to not try to emulate the anti-science storytelling of the evolutionists, or if you are one of those weak and easily intinidated Christians who are awed by PhD degrees in the soft sciences that evolutionists seem to monopolize, that you get over your worship of such anti-science and reserve your science worship if you must for those operational sciences that actually do good scientific work and accomplish meaningful things.

As far as the rocks underlying the Cleveland area are concerned it is not clear to me why Jimmy sees a problem or is he one of those diehards who insist that all geological formations in the world must have been formed in a single year by the Flood.

Rather than concentrating on a single limited area as he has done and trying to develop an elaborate story (fairytale?) for how it might have happened, how about telling us how processes operating over millions or billions of years could ever result in layers that are said to be visible and identifiable on a global scale when it is obvious that today we see no such sedimentary layers of this scope being formed anywhere at all in the world?

[AtheistArchon]

One of the problems I see with geology is that it consists mostly of storytelling.

- *blink*


:eek:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 04:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49652#post49652)
Socratism:
This is an unfair match because we recognize that esince evolutionists are highly trained in storytelling...and science and mathematics...
and they have been doing this for years with ample government funding.I'm confused. Are you suggesting that this is a governmental conspiracy?
This funding permits them to avoid earning an honest living like creationists have to do and to devote their every waking minute to making up new stories and publishing them in their private magazines.Alright, now I'm insulted. Ya. My salary is paid by the government. We are contracted to do geotechnical studies in areas. Some of the largest projects involves deep underground water storage during storm events so that when it rains, sewer plants don't have to dump the sewage into the rivers and lake.

What I don't understand with your objection is that, if this were a huge conspiracy, our designs wouldn't work. The mainstream, aka vastly taken as gospel, geology standards are important in extrapolating the information we obtain by our drilling. If these geologic standards had their foundations set in "storytelling", the designs would fail! This doesn't happen.

What I'm getting fed up with is this conspiracy crap. I'm a structural/geotechnical engineer. I KNOW about these aspects in relation to reality. I know the science. I know that the gradual bowing of the continental bedrock in Eastern Ohio is extremely symbolic of a gradual loading. http://www.ohiodnr.com/geosurvey/pdf/geologic.pdf

How do I know this? Because it is HOW THINGS WORK! You take something with a certain loading, a certain elastic modulus, a certain distribution, there are things you expect to see. I'm an engineer because I can recognize these things.

Then to be told that this is some sort of conspiracy without any backing, regarding what else could possible cause it. If you don't know the science you can't refute it with wildly exotic and unfounded idealogies. The global flood isn't a theory. Its a dream and fantasy. There is no backing of it anywhere. From the Canadian Shield to Conglomerate outcrops in Northeast Ohio is extremely symbolic of this. Bruce Pennisula is a perfect example of how the world has changed over time. Fossilized coral atop the high cliffs? How the heck did that happen in central Ontario?

An old earth is fact, not theory. And I brought up the example I brought up because it is one in one million that really refute a global flood. The condition is too acute to be formed by the same model that laid down all the sedimentary rock. The valley should be filled with rock, not soil. I also bring it up because I know that AIG has no answer to it. They don't search out geology, they find one or two issues and then make up stuff. There is a reason why they had to take "science" out of their title name.
So I would encourage my Christian brothers and sisters to not try to emulate the anti-science storytelling of the evolutionists,When does a theory become reality or what makes it story telling? Is this your response because you can't come close to explaining how a global flood could have formed the conditions some people bring up. The situation I bring up is too simple. No radiometric dating, no varves, just simple sedimentary rock.
or if you are one of those weak and easily intinidated Christians who are awed by PhD degrees in the soft sciences that evolutionists seem to monopolize,Soft sciences? But then we are supposed to bow down to the PhD's of AIG and ICR? And what is a soft science anyways? Anything you don't have the ability to understand? How can you refute something you don't know? That'd be like scrutinizing the bible without actually reading it!
that you get over your worship of such anti-science and reserve your science worship if you must for those operational sciences that actually do good scientific work and accomplish meaningful things.Can you please give us a complete list defining which sciences are where. And perhaps at what time they may have gone from one type to the other, such as medicine. I mean if christians aren't supposed to care about certain sciences, then you need to tell them which ones.
As far as the rocks underlying the Cleveland area are concerned it is not clear to me why Jimmy sees a problem or is he one of those diehards who insist that all geological formations in the world must have been formed in a single year by the Flood.I'm using it to refute a global flood!
Rather than concentrating on a single limited area as he has done and trying to develop an elaborate story (fairytale?)Are you saying I'm lying?! Go get a USGS map, find the bedrock elevations. Then we'll talk. Until then, stop making basely accusations. They are as empty and meaningless as your science.
Look at Cuyahoga County, Ohio for how it might have happened, how about telling us how processes operating over millions or billions of years could ever result in layers that are said to be visible and identifiable on a global scale when it is obvious that today we see no such sedimentary layers of this scope being formed anywhere at all in the world? YOu want to start a thread on that, fine, but if you've got nothing to add to my thread, stick to the lurking. You've got nothing relevant to add.

[Socratism]

My, my, such a rant.

People who are doing soft science do not seem to even recognize it for what it is.

One quick way to detect a "soft" science is that it deals with past events and develops stories to explain how things came to be.

"Hard" science is able to develop equations or relationships that are then used to make predictions which are either verified or falsified by subsequent events in the real world.

BTW. its not a "conspiracy" for people to request money from governments to conduct useless projects. A better description is wasteful and dumb, and governments seem to specialize in these qualities.

Do you actually see conspiracies everywhere you look?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 06:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49764#post49764)
Socratism:
BTW. its not a &quot;conspiracy&quot; for people to request money from governments to conduct useless projects. A better description is wasteful and dumb, and governments seem to specialize in these qualities.Glad you feel that way. We'll just dump the sewage into your place. You have no idea of what goes on around you.
*clicks on ignore*

[Woman]

Socratism:

This is an unfair match because we recognize that esince evolutionists are highly trained in storytelling and they have been doing this for years with ample government funding. This funding permits them to avoid earning an honest living like creationists have to do and to devote their every waking minute to making up new stories and publishing them in their private magazines.

*sigh*

I note that you have racheted up your rant a level or two. Unfortunately your wild-eyed river-dance to avoid being logical or even truthful is destroying the remnants of your credibility.

Just out of curiousity, do you listen to a lot of talk radio? Do you refer to the two party political system as Right and Communist? Do you believe your drinking water has been tampered with?

What is your very favorite conspiracy theory site?

[Socrates]

Socratism:

This is an unfair match because we recognize that esince evolutionists are highly trained in storytelling...

Jimmy Higgins shows his true unfriendly and unpleasant colors in his reply:and science and mathematics...Except that evolutionism has NOTHING to do with science and math and EVERYTHING to do with bigoted materialism. We already know that Jimmy has the typical humanist hatred of Christianity and Patriotism.

... and they have been doing this for years with ample government funding.
I'm confused. That much is right.Are you suggesting that this is a governmental conspiracy?It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It is a clear statement of fact that evolutionary research has to be government funded since it has no practical benefit.

This funding permits them to avoid earning an honest living like creationists have to do and to devote their every waking minute to making up new stories and publishing them in their private magazines.

Alright, now I'm insulted.Poor baby. Fact is, evolutionist on government salaries FREQUENTLY push their materialistic beliefs. JH:
What I don't understand with your objection is that, if this were a huge conspiracy, our designs wouldn't work. The mainstream, aka vastly taken as gospel, geology standards are important in extrapolating the information we obtain by our drilling. If these geologic standards had their foundations set in "storytelling", the designs would fail! This doesn't happen. But the design depends on the way rocks are NOW. This much is NOT story telling. The story-telling lies in claims about their ORIGINS by slow and gradual processes. NOTHING that Jimmy designs depends on this, but rather on OBSERVABLE features such as rock strength.How do I know this? Because it is HOW THINGS WORK! You take something with a certain loading, a certain elastic modulus, a certain distribution, there are things you expect to see. I'm an engineer because I can recognize these things. I know engineers who recognise the obvious DESIGN of the rotary motors of the bacterial flagellum and ATP synthase.

And I am a chemist who knows how chemicals work. And non-living have absolutely NO tendency to form living cells; rather, the reactions are in the OPPOSITE direction!
Then to be told that this is some sort of conspiracy Hahaha coming from one who buys into all the leftist conspiracy nonsense that the Allies are going into Iraq because of the oil, and that Hitler was a Christian. Give us a break!!... without any backing, regarding what else could possible cause it. If you don't know the science you can't refute it with wildly exotic and unfounded idealogies. You mean, know the science from your obcure corner of the world. The global flood isn't a theory. Its a dream and fantasy. There is no backing of it anywhere.Sez Jimmy who dismisses the Eyewitness accounts of Genesis becaue of his anti-Christian bigotry. Fossilized coral atop the high cliffs? How the heck did that happen in central Ontario? Seems like PERFECT evidence that this was once under water, and was subsequently uplifted -- just as the global Flood would predict!An old earth is fact, not theory. And I brought up the example I brought up because it is one in one million that really refute a global flood. Now Jimmy is speaking way out of his field of expertise.They don't search out geology, they find one or two issues and then make up stuff. Another ipse dixit from an engineer, ignoring that there are AiG and ICR scientists who are highly qualified geologists unlike Jimmy.There is a reason why they had to take "science" out of their title name.So Jimmy, any proof that they "HAD" to take "Science" out of their name, let alone that this is the reason? C'mon, you made an accusation against AiG, so PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!

[GrayPilgrim]

8. Board Etiquette

Please respect the wishes of the thread starter to keep a thread on topic when requested and do not post using all caps, this includes profiles, signatures and screen names.

JH has asked repeatedly for this discussion to get back on topic. Please honor this request.

GP

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 09:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49652#post49652)
Socratism:

I agree.

snipped antiscience dishonest ranting.


Why is there no emoticon for throwing up?

:argh: :argh:

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 11:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49764#post49764)
Socratism:

My, my, such a rant.

People who are doing soft science do not seem to even recognize it for what it is.

One quick way to detect a &quot;soft&quot; science is that it deals with past events and develops stories to explain how things came to be.


Like how Noah got all those animals on the ark! LOL!

&quot;Hard&quot; science is able to develop equations or relationships that are then used to make predictions which are either verified or falsified by subsequent events in the real world.

Yup, evolution does that. Creationsim doesn't.

[GrayPilgrim]

8. Board Etiquette

Please respect the wishes of the thread starter to keep a thread on topic when requested and do not post using all caps, this includes profiles, signatures and screen names.

JH has asked repeatedly for this discussion to get back on topic. Please honor this request.

GP

[AtheistArchon]

Except that evolutionism has NOTHING to do with science and math and EVERYTHING to do with bigoted materialism. We already know that Jimmy has the typical humanist hatred of Christianity and Patriotism.

- You know what, Soc? I'm going to make a thread for you just on these subjects right here. No... two threads. One for "bigoted materialism" and one for "hatred of Christianity and Patriotism" (sic).

- Just so you can get over it. See you there.

[Jimmy Higgins]

With the lack of any response to my question, I am assuming that no one in this web board who believes the Global Flood happened can explain this.

Does this situation put into doubt, your opinion on the global flood?

[Socrates]

JH:
With the lack of any response to my question, I am assuming that no one in this web board who believes the Global Flood happened can explain this. Does this situation put into doubt, your opinion on the global flood?Not at all, because of the historical eye-witness evidence for it. There is nothing that says that Australian creationists have to explain obscure Ohio geology to believe this eye-witness report, especially since same Australians have good evidence for the Flood in their own part of the world. And especially, we don't have to kiss the patoot of specially to atheistic engineers obsessed with their own narrow little part of the world but who won't abandon their materialistic FAITH just because they can't explain how the ATP-synthase motor arose without intelligent design.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50650#post50650)
Socrates:
Not at all, because of the historical eye-witness evidence for it.

What eye-witness evidence? According to people who believe in the Global Flood, MOSES, not Noah, but MOSES wrote the first five books. Just in case you weren't aware of it, Moses was not on the ark!

[Socrates]

Socrates:


Not at all, because of the historical eye-witness evidence for it.

Jimmy "Hitler was a Christian" Higgins:
What eye-witness evidence? According to people who believe in the Global Flood, MOSES, not Noah, but MOSES wrote the first five books. Just in case you weren't aware of it, Moses was not on the ark!Don'tcha just love it when arrogant evolutionists bleat about creationists talking outside their field, yet haven't the slightest hesitation about doing the same themselves!

It is most likely that Moses was the EDITOR of Genesis from pre-existing tablets, which is shown by many editorial comments (e.g. Gen. 26:33, 32:32). Sometimes the ancient tablets were left alone, e.g. 10:19 where directions are matter-of-factly given to Sodom, a city long destroyed and under the Dead Sea by Moses' time. Genesis 6:9 and 10:1 seem to be signatures at the end of what were originally separate tablets by Noah and his three sons respectively.

And of course, based on Jesus's endorsement of what Scripture says as what God says, and Jesus' specific endorsement of the Flood and Ark in Luke 17:26-27 (Jesus is fully God and fully man), the main eye-witness is God Himself.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50663#post50663)
Socrates:
It is most likely that Moses was the EDITOR of Genesis from pre-existing tablets, which is shown by many editorial comments (e.g. Gen. 26:33, 32:32).

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[GrayPilgrim]

Yesterday @ 10:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50672#post50672)
Jimmy Higgins:



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ummm...he knows whereof he speaks. Unfortuneatly, for you, even non-Evangelcial scholars are pushing the date further and further back and this is a view espoused by some scholars, thus I find your laughing disingenous.

Now I will return to lurking and enforcing the thread starter's wishes as needs be.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 06:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50769#post50769)
GrayPilgrim:



Ummm...he knows whereof he speaks. Unfortuneatly, for you, even non-Evangelcial scholars are pushing the date further and further back and this is a view espoused by some scholars, thus I find your laughing disingenous.

Now I will return to lurking and enforcing the thread starter's wishes as needs be.


Hey GP,
Would you be willing to discuss that in a new thread it sounds real interesting!

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[QED]

Perhaps this point can be answered from the Bible of the YEC religion. It says, with all javaScriptural authority, that Moses was the writer (not just the editor) of the Pentateuch.

The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, often referred to in the Bible as ‘the Law’ (Hebrew torah), is overwhelming:

Contrary to the views of Wellhausen and others, archaeological research has established that writing was indeed well known in Moses’ day. The JEDP hypothesis falsely assumes that the Iraelites waited until many centuries after the foundation of their nation before committing any of their history or laws to written form, even though their neighbours kept written records of their own history and religion from before the time of Moses.4

The author is obviously an eyewitness of the Exodus from Egypt, familiar with the geography,5 flora and fauna of the region;6 he uses several Egyptian words,7 and refers to customs that go back to the second millennium bc.8

The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.

Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7–8; 8:32–34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13.

In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Other New Testament speakers/writers said the same thing, e.g. John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28.

Does this mean that Moses wrote Genesis without reference to any previous information? Not necessarily. Genesis comprises narratives of historical events that occurred before Moses was born. Moses may very well have had access to patriarchal records and/or reliable oral traditions of these events. In that case, such records would certainly have been preserved by being written (probably on clay tablets) and handed down from father to son via the line of
Adam-Seth-Noah-Shem-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, etc.
(from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3745.asp )

Note how this article clearly distinguishes between "eye-witness" accounts of the exodus and hearsay evidence from earlier records that Moses may have incorporated into his writing (hypothetically).

Does that make anyone who believes that Moses was the editor of Genesis a "compromiser", or "churchian", with an anti-BIBLICAL-Christianity world-view?

[tgamble]

Today @ 03:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50663#post50663)
Socrates:

Socrates:
And of course, based on Jesus's endorsement of what Scripture says as what God says, and Jesus' specific endorsement of the Flood and Ark in Luke 17:26-27 (Jesus is fully God and fully man), the main eye-witness is God Himself.

And of course, you still have no evidence for that. Either the eyewitness being God or a global flood.

Given all the evidence against a global flood and the fact that there's no evidence for one, if the eyewitness was God, obviously he was lying.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50769#post50769)
GrayPilgrim:

Ummm...he knows whereof he speaks. Unfortuneatly, for you, even non-Evangelcial scholars are pushing the date further and further back and this is a view espoused by some scholars, thus I find your laughing disingenous. Well of course. First it was from the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Then from the Sumerian myth. To suggest that Noah recorded this is absolutely a farce. Such suggestions are made by some "scholars" because there are significant holes in the Moses wrote the whole first five books idea. Like an ancient city mentioned in The Paradise Narrative or any other such instances. It is a compromise and a pretty bad one at that. They admit that there were other sources, by Moses was the compiler. Sounds alot like the Documentary Hypothesis for fundies.

[GrayPilgrim]

Note it is not Documentary Hypothesis for fundies, because the DH was developed along Eurocentric views of composition that showed no understanding for the literary style of the ANE. Come on it even states in Numbers "Wherefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD." It does not take a the DH to say that the material was compiled from several locations. There are several other serious flaws to the DH hence why it is more and more being discarded by scholars, who are in no way Fundies or Evangelicals. I recommend you spend some time reading the Epic of Gilgamesh and other ANE literature such as the Enuma Elish, The Epic of Keret, The Epic Aqhat and The Epic of Baal and notice the stark differences from the Biblical accounts. The problem with much study which has focused on the similarities is that they have ignored the evidence. One book I read in my undergrad (can't remember if it was Gordon's The Ancient Near East or Frankfort et al's The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man I think it was probably Frankfort) said that Utnapishtin's description of the his ark was a sea worthy vessel and Noah's was an cube. Well here is the relevant segment from the Epic of Gilgamesh (from James B. Pritchard The Ancient Near East vol. I, p 66.)
Tablet XI (starting in line 24)Tear down (this) house and build a ship!
Give up possessions, seek thou life.
Forswear (worldly) goods and keep the soul alive!
Aboard the ship take thou the seed of all living things.
The ship that thou build,
Her dimensions shall be to measure.
Equal shall be her width and her length(emphasis added)

Hmm that sounds like a cube to me. Hmm…If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. So we see here a definite bias against the Bible that flies in the face of the evidence. Why? Because they want to disprove that the Bible is accurate, so they will hold Gilgamesh and the like as more accurate and hold the Bible proven until innocent. Thus I would research this a little more in depth prior to spouting of that it is a fundie plot. Now do you need to resort to ad hom to make your argument? Is anyone who does not think like you a fundie? Your hostility is unnecessary and most unbecoming for honest debate. Have you ever thought that you might catch more flies with honey...

[Pilgrim]

I was just going to recommend Pritchard for all the relevant primary source literature! You rock GreyPilgrim.

[Bald Ape]

I've very little knowledge of the subject, but I'm wondering why the books of the OT are written in third person, if they are eye-witness accounts? If they are second-hand accounts, why don't they include a description of how the original account made it to the actual writer (e.g. if by devine revlation, why aren't they opened with "The lord revealed to me, in a dream, that 'In the Beginning...").

Why does nothing about the way these stories are told feel as though they are being told by people who were there to see them? Why do they all seem to be written as though the author had no personal involvement whatsoever in the stories themselves?

[tgamble]

Today @ 03:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50650#post50650)
Socrates:

JH:
With the lack of any response to my question, I am assuming that no one in this web board who believes the Global Flood happened can explain this. Does this situation put into doubt, your opinion on the global flood?

Not at all, because of the historical eye-witness evidence for it.

Which you don't have.

[Socratism]

Obviously Gamble is a troll.

[Socrates]

BaldApe:I've very little knowledge of the subject, but I'm wondering why the books of the OT are written in third person, if they are eye-witness accounts?Actually, this was common in ancient writings. Julius Caesar did the same -- see The Gallic Wars (http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html).
If they are second-hand accounts, why don't they include a description of how the original account made it to the actual writer (e.g. if by devine revlation, why aren't they opened with "The lord revealed to me, in a dream, that 'In the Beginning..."). Frequently they do. Other times, Moses said he used sources, as our resident Hebrew scholar GrayPilgrim points out. I've provided evidence both for Moses' editing earlier accounts (e.g. Gen. 26:33, 32:32). and for unedited portions (e.g. Genesis 10:19) indicating that Genesis had far older sources than Moses.

But the main points are what QED cited (although he's an unbeliever): that Jesus and the Apostles believed in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and their frequent equation of "Scripture said" with "God said". There was nothing in the way "authorship" was understood to the ancients to rule out being the editor or using scribes.

[tgamble]

Today @ 12:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51509#post51509)
Socratism:

Obviously Gamble is a troll.

Obviously you can't answer the origonal question so you've resorted to stupid insults.

We're still waiting for an answer.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51655#post51655)
Socrates:
Actually, this was common in ancient writings. Julius Caesar did the same -- see The Gallic Wars (http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html).Just a side note. If you are going to use past texts as an example, perhaps you should use an example that isn't up to 2000 years younger than the biblical scriptures. That be like comparing Caesar's writings to something written today.
Frequently they do. Other times, Moses said he used sources, as our resident Hebrew scholar GrayPilgrim points out. I've provided evidence both for Moses' editing earlier accounts and for unedited portions indicating that Genesis had far older source than Moses.So this would explain that issue regarding the Paradise Narrative then? The one dealing with Asshur, that is.

[Socrates]

Socrates (about BaldApe's query about third-person writing):

Actually, this was common in ancient writings. Julius Caesar did the same -- see The Gallic Wars (http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html).

Jimmy "Hitler was a Christian" Higgins, after spending most of this thread whinging about creationists allegedly going outside their fields and questioning his supposed "expertise", once again goes WELL outside his own expertise:Just a side note. If you are going to use past texts as an example, perhaps you should use an example that isn't up to 2000 years younger than the biblical scriptures. That be like comparing Caesar's writings to something written today.Excuse me for breathing, but BaldApe claimed that the use of the third person was anomalous, and I presented a famous counter-example. So it's up to you two to show why the third person is any problem. This style of writing is prevalent in the Bible and other ANE literature as well.

[GrayPilgrim]

JH,

Would the Epic of Baal found at Ras Shamra do? How about The Epic of Gilgamesh (which your comments brought into the discussion)? Or Aqhat? Or Keret (sometimes called Kirta do to the improtation of Akkadian morphology in to Ugaritic phonology)?

For the Ugaritic texts I would reccomend Ugaritic Narrative Poetry edited by Simon B. Parker (or mine :teeth:) as The Context of Scripture is published by Brill which means $$$$$$ oddly enough the bindings are cheap which is an oddity for Brill so an added reason ot not purchase it.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 11:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51759#post51759)
GrayPilgrim:

JH,

Would the Epic of Baal found at Ras Shamra do? How about The Epic of Gilgamesh (which your comments brought into the discussion)? Or Aqhat? Or Keret (sometimes called Kirta do to the improtation of Akkadian morphology in to Ugaritic phonology)?

For the Ugaritic texts I would reccomend Ugaritic Narrative Poetry edited by Simon B. Parker (or mine :teeth:) as The Context of Scripture is published by Brill which means $$$$$$ oddly enough the bindings are cheap which is an oddity for Brill so an added reason ot not purchase it. Well, I've got the Gilgamesh Epic. I've got the Enuma Elish. I've got the Orvesta (sp?). You ask me to read things I've already read. I've got an impressive collection, for my age, regarding religion. I love buying books.

As for the Enuma Elish, there are arguably many correlation between it and the Tanakh. However, what can not be argued is that the relation between the First Story of Creation and the Babylonian Genesis, not only are similar, but are nearly identical in creation and chronological order.

The Documentary Hypothesis does not suggest that the Hebrews stole every single thing from foreign cultures. However, they posit that certain idealogies were incorporated through assimilation when they ventured into Canaan.

We all know that ancient scripts can be seen throughout the Tanakh, specifically, but certainly not limited to Isaiah, Psalms, Job, and Genesis. To think for a moment, though that Moses was the redactor is a bit naive, seeing that the Exodus itself is in question as to ever happening to the extent claimed.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 09:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51700#post51700)
Socrates:
Jimmy &quot;Hitler was a Christian&quot; Higgins, after spending most of this thread whinging about creationists allegedly going outside their fields and questioning his supposed &quot;expertise&quot;, once again goes WELL outside his own expertise:I'm sorry. When did you get a PhD in such areas of study? Or who made you the authority to know who is an authority?
Excuse me for breathing, but BaldApe claimed that the use of the third person was anomalous, and I presented a famous counter-example. So it's up to you two to show why the third person is any problem. This style of writing is prevalent in the Bible and other ANE literature as well. I'm not disagreeing, but you gave him an example of writing that can be up to and even over 2000 years younger than the scriptures being discussed. If that isn't relevant...

[Bald Ape]

Socrates flails: Jimmy "Hitler was a Christian" Higgins

We're talking about Genesis being written in the 3rd person. If not for the purpose of an ad hominem attack, why do you bring up Jimmy Higgin's views on the religious beliefs of Adolf Hitler?

[Bald Ape]

Gray Pilgrim,

Were your citations meant to be examples of eye-witness accounts given in the third person, or were they a continuation of the discussion you were having with JH before I showed up?

[GrayPilgrim]

Yesterday @ 11:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Bald Ape:

Gray Pilgrim,

Were your citations meant to be examples of eye-witness accounts given in the third person, or were they a continuation of the discussion you were having with JH before I showed up?


Sorry I was not clearer. They were a continuation of the discussion of the use of third person as the standard method of "historiography" in ancient literature.