Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
Jehu is building up a remarkable track-record in this thread. For lying and hateful rants, anyway. Terrific evidence for the doubters of the quality of anti-evolutionary thought.
Jehu coming up with a proper reference to Feduccia saying that "Archx is not a transitional form" is about as likely as Jehu coming up with a reference to the "Darwin died in despair" claim, or Jehu substantiating his claim that Popper said that "ToE isn't science", or Jehu coming up with an explanation of the remarkable coincidence between his independent ideas debunking evolution and Simmons book.
Jehu is building up a remarkable track-record in this thread. For lying and hateful rants, anyway. Terrific evidence for the doubters of the quality of anti-evolutionary thought.
Doubtless (if you believe that the story is true) you will include an explanation of where the water came from and where it went to (as a good engineer, Jehu). IIRC the biblical account variously claims the source as "The fountains of the earth" (artesian water?) and 40 days of rain. It also states that the earth including mountains was completely covered to a depth of 15 cubits (I have just looked up in KJ).
Taking the 5 miles above sea level of mount Everest as a reference point that has to be submerged the requirement can be calculated as around 1 billion cubic miles of water appearing over a period of 40 days. To put it another way, that much water would be a sphere over 1000 miles in diameter. Hope that helps.
Presumably you will also account for the total lack of any genetic or geological evidence of this event. In fact the total lack of any evidence at all for this event, other than the fact that lots of ancient civilisations have flood stories... Gee I wonder why that would be? I don't suppose it has anything to do with ancient civilisations all growing up along rivers that occasionally flooded catastrophically. (perhaps people even occasionally saved themselves and a tiny portion of their livestock on a boat or raft)
"seeing as I am an atheist"
Why are you an atheist?
"LOL. As it happens I am a Civil Engineer. Does that frighten you? I hope so."
My daughter is a Civil Engineer and she finds evolution quite convincing.
My fear about someone who won't rationally consider scientific data in biology may carry over to bridge design.
Please tell us specifically, Jehu, what state you have designed bridges in and where these are located.
A true Christian would do this for a brother.
Of course the fact that I was brought up as an atheist probably contributes. As I've stated in my arguments with ConCrusader I contend that religious belief is not largely a matter of choice.
Jehu says he is some kind of electronics engineer. It is me, the atheist supporter of evolution who is a Civil Engineer. (and not really even that. I was pulling Jehu's leg as it happens, I just trained as a Civil Engineer and now work in software, so my qualifications to pontificate about this stuff are about as good as Simmons)
So if you have any safety concerns it should be about electrical devices designed by Jehu. ;)
I just find it interesting that someone as rational as you has not looked into the fact based reasons for believing in God.
Oh Jehu designs stuff. That explains it. ;-)
Perhaps I have, and haven't been convinced... care to cite a URL or book you think I should read?
Well, I have been a believer for over 50 years, so it is tough for me to know where to start.
But, I found Faith Founded on Fact, Essays in Evidential Apologetics to be quite interesting. It is by John Warwick Montgomery. Copyright is 1978. Published by Trinity Publishing.
I don't know how available it is anymore. Let me know if you want to read it and have trouble obtaining it.
I have read a book that purported to offer similar evidence before (sorry, a while ago so I cannot cite references) and my recollection is that I found a lot of "conclusion presuming" going on, and that the arguments would reinforce pre-existing beliefs but were unconvincing to me as a non-believer. I am not assuming that Warwick will be more of the same however (witness I am shelling out hard-earned for it).
Locke's and Paley's arguments for "God as designer" were powerful ones before the 19th century of course.
I think that in arguing for God there are some things that you must accept for the sake of argument.
Any god whose existence does not rely on faith is not much of a god.
Remember, the title of the book I suggested was about faith not proving the existence of God, per se.
Try Alibris for a used copy of the Faith book. www.alibris.com
"Locke's and Paley's arguments for "God as designer" were powerful ones before the 19th century of course."
To me, having God design everything one at a time, as the creationists insist He must have done, limits God to being somewhat of a retard.
If He created everything in one big bang and all the systems start working, I think that is pretty good. ;-)
Traditional understanding is that much of the water came from huge underground caverns, which collapsed, causing their contents to spew out. IOW, the pre-deluvian ocean surface was much smaller. Such caverns still exist under Florida.
Another source of water is "the floodgates of heaven." A few years ago, it was discovered that the earth is constantly colliding with huge masses of ice crystals lying along its orbital path. The apparent source of these crystals is - earth. We leave them behind as vapour and pick them back up, later. I suspect this process was somehow involved, as well.
The account indicates the flood as the first rain ever. That's quite a claim. If true, there must have been some massive atmospheric changes, as well.
Finally, another odd phrase is "the water covered all the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits." Well, all the mountains are not the same heighth. I believe a tidal wave is being described here - one large enough to travel around the whole earth. The Scandinavian and pacific island accounts indicate something of this nature, as well.
P. S. There is no way of knowing where Noah lived, prior to the flood. We only know he landed somewhere between Turkey and Egypt.
There is no evidence at all for any of your claims as to where the water came from, in fact at a quick glance they all appear physically nonsensical (and your claim of a huge tidal wave appears to contradict the biblical account but no doubt you rationalise it somehow). But lets accept them for the sake of the good laugh you are giving everybody.... now, where did the billion cubic miles of water go afterwards?
Fine, I'll do some research and get back to you.
Noah's Ark: I don't know enough details to consider myself any kind of expert but, looking at the whole story, it fits together. You're right, the rain was not the only source of water.
Well you are part right, rain as we understand cannot be the source of any of the water. Rain is oceanic precipitation and cannot raise global water levels.
Here are a few things to consider: Traditional understanding is that much of the water came from huge underground caverns, which collapsed, causing their contents to spew out. IOW, the pre-deluvian ocean surface was much smaller. Such caverns still exist under Florida.
Traditional understanding has no scientific standing and fails on numerous levels. (a) It implies a catastrophic global *lowering* of the land by several miles which is in no way implied or mentioned in the flood story. (b) The energy release from such an event would not be survivable by the ark or by fish. Like Krakatoa occuring everywhere in the world at once. (c) Such an event would leave global evidence behind on a vast scale, we are talking a billion cubic miles of water being squeezed out of caverns by a collapse. There is no such evidence. (A few small caves in Florida does not count as evidence)
Another source of water is "the floodgates of heaven." A few years ago, it was discovered that the earth is constantly colliding with huge masses of ice crystals lying along its orbital path. The apparent source of these crystals is - earth. We leave them behind as vapour and pick them back up, later. I suspect this process was somehow involved, as well.
Your "huge masses" of ice won't even begin to do the job. I don't even need a citation of them from you to know that this is a relatively tiny completely irrelevant phenomenon. However, for the sake of amusement, lets imagine the earth slamming into a billion cubic miles of ice (slightly more, in fact because ice is higher-volume than water) at solar-orbital velocity over a period of 40 days. Lets just think about the kinetic energy-loss involved.... 1/2 * m * v * v Yep, I think you just vaporised the earth with that theory. (Jehu will be so glad that math is being brought to bear on the subject)
The account indicates the flood as the first rain ever. That's quite a claim. If true, there must have been some massive atmospheric changes, as well.
I missed the reference to rain being a new phenomenon invented for the flood, though it begs the question how did the water cycle work before that? Massive atmospheric changes? You bet, I would be prepared to bet that no-one can postulate a mechanism for the flood that doesn't destroy the earth's atmosphere completely, and much of the earth's crust into the bargain.
Finally, another odd phrase is "the water covered all the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits." Well, all the mountains are not the same heighth. I believe a tidal wave is being described here - one large enough to travel around the whole earth.
You are the one who believes that the bible is an accurate literal account of real events (except perhaps when it doesn't suit you?). Genesis 7 16 to 7 20 quite clearly describes a gradual uplift of the flood waters till the mountains are covered, not a global "tidal wave" (though I did enjoy the mental picture of the aghast Noah who has just spent 100 years building a boat according to the Lord's instruction looking at the giant tidal wave that is about to utterly destroy it)
The Scandinavian and pacific island accounts indicate something of this nature, as well.
Well, would you believe it? People who live on islands by or in the ocean have myths and stories about being inundated by hurricanes/tsunamis/typhoons. Incredible, I would never have expected that, any more than I would expect river civilisations who haven't mastered flood engineering to have "rainy" flood stories
P. S. There is no way of knowing where Noah lived, prior to the flood. We only know he landed somewhere between Turkey and Egypt.
If he lived at all, he lived in the middle east, and once saved his family from a local flood (that seemed like global devastation to those involved) in a boat. Possibly he saved some livestock too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.