THANK YOU for this sentiment. the ignorant making hasty judgments based on tired truisms and sloppy reading of sloppily written third- or fourth-hand sources unfortunately does not exist only in the realm of scientific debate.

Bonus response

caposkia wrote:

There are gaping holes in Evolution too,

**note added:  I will respond to your longer post at another date, I'm kind of tight on time, but finally was able to get back on the site.

No. There are not! I can't be nice about this. Here, you are either lying, someone has failed to do a good job of teaching you about evolution, or you are simply too stupid (or deluded) to grasp it. 

There are gaps in the fossil record, but to point to those is much like saying that since there are gaps between my home and place of work, then you can't conclude that I used the roads or sidewalks to arrive there. 

The DNA evidence alone is enough to show us that the theory is bulletproof, unless a finding is uncovered that actually proves it false (as said by J.B.S. Haldane, "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" is done. No such finding has EVER been found).

We can measure the rate of DNA change between yourself and your parents, and everyone else, and from that figure out the rate of change that is possible, and also the rate of change that is the most common. There is no animal that has ever been found with a DNA sequence that has puzzled biologists. All of it shows that it would have come from a common ancestor. Because of that, we could compare the DNA of any two creatures (or plants, or bacteria even) on Earth, and provide an estimate as to how many generations ago the common ancestor existed. Obviously that's with a bigger margin of error the more different the organisms are to each other.

If you have trouble believing that we descended from other primates with no help from a supernatural being:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

^^.....see wiki...and don't ever say that there are gaping holes in the unifying theory of all biology before you know anything CLOSE to enough about it to utter such a statement. Kenneth Miller (a Catholic believe it or not) said about the above something along the lines of "I believe in a creator, but not a deceptive one". He accepts (with no issue...and in fact insists) that this simply happened, and did NOT require any outside help. 

 

caposkia wrote:

you forget too that the 200,000 number has changed as well. 

I haven't forgotten. You have changed the number a dozen times. The bottom line is, that none of the numbers you choose work.

Of course not, because there is no year when the flood could have happened as described- which is my point. Earlier than 200,000 years doesn't work any better than later.

caposkia wrote:

Also Neanderthals could have been among those taken onto the boat...

Lol. Okay, let's play with that theory. So God doesn't consider Neanderthals to be human (since in the story NO humans other than Noah and family were on the boat). Noah puts them on the boat like the rest of the animals. That means the flood had to happen roughly 200,000 years ago or earlier (that is the point we know interbreeding started- and yes we do know). Then somehow, after the flood, the Neanderthals managed to multiply and spread out throughout all of Europe and northern Asia really quickly. Fast enough that modern Archaeology can't even tell there was a massive population change, before homo sapiens left Africa (does that mean those of us with Neanderthal DNA are not completely human? That Asians are less human than everyone else? And Africans are more human? Would God have considered a human have sex with a Neanderthal beastiality? Add in the moral question, how do you justify God exterminating not just animals, but also an intelligent, tool making, probably talking species just because he was mad at homo sapiens?) All you are doing is opening up even larger holes in the story.

 

There are ways of knowing. We have the dates that humans interbred with Neanderthals down to a range of about 100,000 years. We know all sorts of things, that you choose to be willfully ignorant doesn't change that. The point is, there is absolutely no time in history where the story of the flood, as portrayed in the bible, is a possibility. There are simply too many gaping holes in the story that have no rational explanation.

I am convinced that a time machine so you could go back and watch Noah not build the Ark yourself wouldn't convince you. I don't think there is anything in the world that will convince you to that a story a 6 year old can tell is fantasy is completely absurd.

 

First... it wasn't genocide.. it was annihilation.  

The talking snake God put there was not put there by God, rather it was posessed by Satan.  Satan had rebelled in heaven and in fact He had put the snake there so as to coerse Eve into eating the fruit.  Guess you didn't read that part of the Bible yet though.  Yea, Satan's snake was then cursed along with Satan and Jesus talks about the time when Satan and 1/3 of the angels were kicked out of heaven for that choice they made

...and you're here expecting me to buy your skepticism?  please!

Historians routinely pinpoint dates and when there isn't enough information they at least manage to have a rough date range of when an event occurred. I have NEVER seen any credible historian say "This event happened, but I have no clue when it might have happened. But I'm sure it must have some point in the last 100 million years." You claim to know that this event happened, I am just asking for a rough range of when it might have been physically possible.  

There is plenty of information. Give me a date, any date, and I can provide a mountain of evidence that the events you claimed were not possible on that date. I have already done so for several dates, which is why you keep changing your assumed date.

Okay great! We have a number that even you agree doesn't work, so at least we shouldn't see that one again. Which number do you want me to completely debunk and shred next? By determining which numbers are not possible, we can develop and narrow a range. 

For starters, we have a lot more data to rely on and predict population levels. We know around 70,000 BC that the human population was dramatically reduced. We also know that other non-human populations were not significantly reduced. There is absolutely no evidence that the population of all animals in the world was ever reduced to two of each species. If it were within the last 200,000 years it would be very obvious in the genetic records. 

Which historical fact is that? I wasn't aware you have presented any historical facts, but it has been a long time I might have forgotten. 

 

caposkia wrote:

To answer your questions directly though:

...DNA not completely human??? Ok, wanna get technical, if minor variences determine humanity than none of us are human anymore.  

You are the one who declared that Neanderthals are not human. I'm asking because it is quite relevant to the story of the bible whether it is very strict that only homo sapiens are human or whether all hominids are human. 

There is absolutely nothing ignorant about knowing and admitting the limitations of the data that is available. 100,000 years isn't really that big of a range. The reason we have a large range is that there is a gap between when we have evidence of humans and neanderthals interacting and when there is genetic evidence of interbreeding. There are a number of plausible explanations for why this is. It is possible that interbreeding was rare or nonexistent at first contact. It is possible that the initial populations that had interaction didn't survive. Or it is possible that interbreeding was common during that 100,000 years but we just don't have a large enough genetic sample to prove it. 

Which 100,000 year range do you want to look at? If you promise to actually look at the journals cataloging the physical evidence showing that your story is not consistent with the physical evidence available for that time period, I will happily go through the effort to find it and post links here. 

I'm going to skip some fluff here (just minor pruning)

Wait, what? How was history portrayed? Family heritage? Have you ever looked up a family tree? I highly doubt you'll keep going once you get back to a time before the written word existed. We record history, family heritage, write wills, etc. because we DO have the written word to keep such records. The world was far different before the written word, and I would venture that most of those things were viewed as rather unimportant because there was nowhere to write them down (nor did people have the ability to predict that the written word would come). The problem is that since the written word wasn't around, we really have no way to check how accurately things were passed down since we have nothing to check it against. To suggest that it was preserved accurately is nothing but an assertion. 

 

Now what is this general basic historical fact I fail to grasp?

Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

While it's not a "particular ethnic group or nation", genocide still applies. Annihilation would usually mean Noah and his family go too. Definitions aside, you're defending a mass murder. 

 

Which details have I ignored?

The rest of this reads as follows. 

1. I don't know which it was, as I wasn't there (although you seem to not argue that those are the only 2 logical possibilites).

2. #1 is not a problem for me, because I just KNOW that the people knew, regardless of how they came to know. There is no such suggestion in the bible, unless you extrapolate your opinion of god's nature to mean that he wouldn't kill people who were simply acting in unintentional ignorance.

What that also means is that you're implying that the entire world knew the severity of the situation. You're implying that they knew that they were acting in a way that displeased an omnipotent god, and even though they knew the risks involved, they continued to act that way. In the narrative, Noah was certain enough of this that he built a giant boat and coralled a lot of animals onto it. Obviously someone would have to be quite convinced to go so far. Was everyone else simply really, REALLY stupid? Or did god not give them the same evidence as he gave to Noah that this was to happen? 

I guess it doesn't really matter, since in the above paragraph you said "There's little question that people knew...". Once again. Once you're backed into a corner with logic, you simply bust out by saying "because god!" You address points (sometimes even comptently) until there is no escape. You then pull out your trump card, because it is impossible in your world-view that god is an asshole. It is also necessary in your world-view for this flood story to be true. Your personal view as you have stated it here is completely irreconcilable. Are you able to see why I think that's the case? If not, you fail to understand logic completely.

Even IF word was somehow able to travel around, him building a giant zoo is not evidence of an impending divine flood on its own. You would have to confirm that he was doing it for that reason, and that such a thing was a real threat. How many people in 2012 sold all of their possessions, because they were certain the rapture was coming. These people were 100% convinced. It doesn't mean they were right (and considering they're still here, it means quite the opposite). Anyway, it says nowhere in the bible that anyone set out to spread the word. Not Noah, not people who witnessed him building this thing, nor did it say that god told anyone "shape the hell up, or you're screwed". Also, I may be missing something but I don't see where it says that it took 120 years to build either. 

Defending disbelief. How imprecise can language get? I'm not really "defending" a position in that way. You are. You are asserting that a certain story happened. I am pointing out why your reasoning is bad. When you asserted that people were informed about the flood, and you were shown (by more people than just me) that either people were either spread too far apart, or they lacked communication skills to explain the impending catastrophe, you simply have been avoiding the time question since. You now simply backed into "of course they knew". You haven't said "because god", but you seem to just be asserting that they definitely knew for some reason. 

Is it necessary that people were informed by Noah/his family world-wide, or not? If not and you assert that people just knew, then why didn't you start with that? It's obvious that you thought you could find a reasonable method that this happened WITHOUT having to resort to "because god", but you couldn't. It has been fully logically ruled out, so now you're just saying that they knew. They just....they knew. If they were given the same evidence Noah was (which was enough for him to build an ark), there is no way that literally everyone else on earth would be so stupid to just say "nah, he's bluffing...just because he can talk to us from the sky doesn't mean he can send a flood to the entire earth!". Of course they knew, because god is good, because the bible says he's good, and the holy spirit tells me he's good. Of course people knew, and it was in their sin that they caused themselves to be killed, etc. etc...that is all you have left. Also, of course the flood happened because the bible says so, even though there is no physical evidence left behind for the biggest flood ever for some reason (but we have physical evidence of a shit-ton of other floods). Because the bible says so. Because god.

If that's the case, stop pretending that you have any actual compelling reasons to believe these things if you're just going to backpedal into that cop-out in the end. Your mind is clearly beyond changing. I care more at this point for you to examine these things yourself than responding. You should examine it, and wonder why it seems to fall apart logically at a certain point, and you have to appeal to the divine, who isn't subject to logic. 

Hah, guess I didn't read it? I have. In 2 languages to boot. You, on the other hand, fail to address my point completely. Why did god not prepare Adam and/or Eve for any potential deception if there was a possibility of it occurring in the garden? Eitehr by making their brains better at detecting deception, or by simply telling them "So anyways, there are these angels who raised all sorts of shit up here, and now I've banished them. Anyhow, they're great at deception. You're allowed to do absolutely EVERYTHING here except eat from that one tree. Someone might try to convince you to eat it...just....just don't. Here is what will happen if you do (explanation of death, pain, etc.).". Nnnnope. God did neither. Is someone who grew up in a broken home responsible for their actions? Yes. Is their behaviour a result of their upbringing? Yes. Why is god blame free in this situation?

...and we have meaded through the dating process... instead of seeing it as logical deduction, you're concluding that I move goalposts... I'm sticking with the final dating that works with everything mentioned.

I think that was between 50,000 and 200,000 years....  

 

So you can prove a negative!  Impressive, most say that's not logically possible.  Instead, why don't you fill in the gaps with what happened instead if you're so sure it didn't happen.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Okay great! We have a number that even you agree doesn't work, so at least we shouldn't see that one again. Which number do you want me to completely debunk and shred next? By determining which numbers are not possible, we can develop and narrow a range. 

If that's your approach then you're going into this with a closed mind and there's really no point in trying.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

For starters, we have a lot more data to rely on and predict population levels. We know around 70,000 BC that the human population was dramatically reduced. We also know that other non-human populations were not significantly reduced. There is absolutely no evidence that the population of all animals in the world was ever reduced to two of each species. If it were within the last 200,000 years it would be very obvious in the genetic records. 

What kind of evidence would we be looking for?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which historical fact is that? I wasn't aware you have presented any historical facts, but it has been a long time I might have forgotten. 

I was referring to what you had presented... you presented initially historical fact which allowed me to do some homework and modify my original dating estimate... you later resorted to reasoning your way out of it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

To answer your questions directly though:

...DNA not completely human??? Ok, wanna get technical, if minor variences determine humanity than none of us are human anymore.  

You are the one who declared that Neanderthals are not human. I'm asking because it is quite relevant to the story of the bible whether it is very strict that only homo sapiens are human or whether all hominids are human. 

So none of us are human anymore.  is that what you would conclude?

I've only been telling you this since the beginning... I'm willing to look at any evidence you're willing to put in front of me... personal rants dont' count as evidence.

caposkia wrote:

...and we have meaded through the dating process... instead of seeing it as logical deduction, you're concluding that I move goalposts... I'm sticking with the final dating that works with everything mentioned.

I think that was between 50,000 and 200,000 years....  

We already covered that, and you already admitted it wasn't possible that recently, which is what started our foray into millions of years ago. Have you presented some new evidence that suggests the previous problems posed with a flood happening earlier than 200,000 years ago are no longer relevant? If you haven't, then just reread pages 1-4. 

 

caposkia wrote:

 

So you can prove a negative!  Impressive, most say that's not logically possible.  Instead, why don't you fill in the gaps with what happened instead if you're so sure it didn't happen.  

I have already covered this several times as well. I don't need to "prove" anything. Logically, absolutely nothing can be proved outside of an axiomatic system. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. The only way to prove anything is to create axioms and you can say that X can be logically proved as long as the set of axioms is correct. I have no interest in getting into the navel gazing that is philosophy which inevitably results in the reality that you can't even prove your own existence. 

What we can do, is look at the available evidence and determine what is most probable, based on the available evidence. When you get to the point where all you have is "well God worked some magic" you have made an assertion that cannot be proven or disproven by its very nature. And it is exactly as nutty as the person who claims they are alien from Alpha Centauri wearing a perfect human bodysuit that can fool all current medical tests into making the alien look human. 

It can be shown, that the evidence we would expect to find if a flood of this magnitude occurred does not exist. We can also show whether or not any evidence of such a flood exists. We can state with absolute certainty, that if our understanding of basic scientific laws are semi-accurate that such a flood is impossible. So unless you can demonstrate that modern geology, meteorology, physics, biology, archaeology etc. are so fundamentally flawed that they are completely unreliable for determining what has or what might happen, you don't have a shred of evidence.

 

There is absolutely nothing for me to be open minded about. You have yet to produce any evidence to support your claim. Produce some evidence, and I will consider it open mindedly. I will not be open minded about baseless naked assertions that are contrary to all the available evidence. 

You would be looking for markers that suggest inbreeding depression, a higher than average rate of IBD (identical by descent) and faster rates of genetic drift. Not just among humans, but among all land animals. For example, we are fairly certain that the human population took a large dip around 80,000 BC... the flood!!!... well not so fast, because other mammals don't show similar evidence of a decline in population and there is no way the population was as low as Noah's family. Humans can only have so many babies, especially without medical care that leads to high infant mortality rates and women dieing during childbirth.  

A dating estimate you have since gone back on. The evidence I presented is precisely why you abandoned your 200,000 years ago theory and went to the million years ago+ theory. Now you went full circle back to your 200,000 years ago theory, is my evidence no longer valid? 

 

No. I believe that all intelligent hominids were human. I contend that Neanderthals, homo erectus and all related species- most of which homo sapiens interbred with- were close enough to us to be considered human. You are the one who suddenly declared under bible standards that only homo sapien counts as human. You are the one creating theories and whether or not Neanderthals are human is pretty important. If they are, then you have the original problem that caused you to initially abandon the <200kya theory. If they aren't, then don't you think the bible would at least mention the other hominid species? And did Noah include neanderthals on the boat with him? For your theory to make sense, you have to address how neanderthals survived the flood and/or how different human populations show dramatically different levels of interbreeding with neanderthals. Did the flood occur before or after neanderthals went extinct? 

Okay, try this on for size. We have a review of genetics going back approximately 125,000 years. Show me where they are wrong, or do you wish to concede that humanity wasn't virtually wiped out in a massive flood anytime after approximately 125,000 BC? 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/

 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

You also end that paragraph with; "you don't have a shred of evidence"...... I must ask you if you remember... What have I been saying on this thread since the start of my posts?  Can you answer that directly?

That God is moral because he warned all humans about the flood before the flood. Which led to me pointing out that humans were dispersed too far, which led to you claiming that it must have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago (reasoning that humans were closer together then) which led to me pointing out that as recently as 2 million years ago, humans were pretty spread out. The reason why the dating is relevent is because your entire argument that God is moral if the entire story as reported is true rests on people being warned before being exterminated. When I pointed out that virtually nothing in the story could have happened 2 million years ago, you made all sorts of fantastic claims.

I am willing to consider everything logically. Where have I not? Every rationalization you have presented, I considered it and then provided you with information as to why your supposition is logically impossible. You would be well off reading your last sentence as virtually every supposition you have made relies on ignorance to believe. Which is why you have needed to continually evolve your assertions to fit around the evidence you have been presented to move to another area where you are ignorant. One was to minimize having to change your assumptions is to look at the evidence and then draw your hypotheses from that. However, it is clear that you have no evidence and just make up your hypotheses running from one area of ignorance to another. And no doubt I have missed a lot of evidence because archaeology and genetics are merely passive interests of mine. 

 

Which is why I didn't use that argument to refute the idea that it happened a few million years ago. A few million years ago, genetics points to much larger problems with the flood story. For example, humans a couple million years ago were physically incapable of complex speech. How could they have communicated the abstract idea of a creator god about to drown the world in a flood?

Although, I think the much stronger argument for that era lies in the absurd notion that the technology in the story could have existed at that time. When you consider it logically, it is highly unlikely that a man two million years ago was able to build a boat at all, let alone one that could survive a prolonged storm at seas carrying a family and several types of animals. Your only possible solution here is to become ignorant because your perspective doesn't agree with the logical reasoning a 6 year old is capable of.

Have you ever tried to build a boat? I have built a canoe once. It isn't easy and it isn't intuitive. Even with modern books giving me step by step instructions and modern tools I found it difficult. My canoe worked, but it certainly wasn't surviving a storm at sea for an hour let alone weeks. Then when you compare it to actual evidence of early boats (about 50,000 years ago) were extremely crude and only useful for short distances. The most common form being dugouts. Some archaeologists suggest that Neanderthals actually discovered sailing around 100kya because evidence of them and their tools has been found on numerous islands. No evidence of actual boats have been found, but I find the story plausible. A few archaeologists argue that the first boats were around a million years ago in Indonesia but their sole evidence is that humans were on islands. Since the largest gap between islands is only 14 miles, it is quite possible that ancients swam that far. But whatever boats they had were almost certainly very crude as their tools which we have found weren't capable of making anything extravagant. The idea that someone back then (let alone a million years earlier) would have been capable of building a seafaring vessel that would be superior to what humans were making in 5,000 BC flys in the face of logic. There are reasons why in every seafaring group of humans we see a progressive evolution in the design of their boats. 

That the God in the story who slaughtered all the innocents is moral because he warned them before killing them. 

Depends on how you define the line. Neanderthal traits started to show up around 600kya and it is generally regarded that they deserve their own subspecies classification around 350kya.

Let's be honest... if there were gaps in the roads, e.g. there were no roads that connected consistently from your home to your work in some way or sidewalks that likewise were consistently connected from your house to your work, i would very logically doubt that you were able to use the roads or sidewalks to get there.  That's typically not a problem for most people unless you live in Juneau AK and work out of town.

jabberwocky wrote:

The DNA evidence alone is enough to show us that the theory is bulletproof, unless a finding is uncovered that actually proves it false (as said by J.B.S. Haldane, "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" is done. No such finding has EVER been found).

We can measure the rate of DNA change between yourself and your parents, and everyone else, and from that figure out the rate of change that is possible, and also the rate of change that is the most common. There is no animal that has ever been found with a DNA sequence that has puzzled biologists. All of it shows that it would have come from a common ancestor. Because of that, we could compare the DNA of any two creatures (or plants, or bacteria even) on Earth, and provide an estimate as to how many generations ago the common ancestor existed. Obviously that's with a bigger margin of error the more different the organisms are to each other.

If you have trouble believing that we descended from other primates with no help from a supernatural being:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

^^.....see wiki...and don't ever say that there are gaping holes in the unifying theory of all biology before you know anything CLOSE to enough about it to utter such a statement. Kenneth Miller (a Catholic believe it or not) said about the above something along the lines of "I believe in a creator, but not a deceptive one". He accepts (with no issue...and in fact insists) that this simply happened, and did NOT require any outside help. 

 

Right.  if I believe that, then I also have to beleive we are decendents of plants as well.  There is much similar DNA in many plants and animals.    At least you're willing to admit there are fossile gaps... Do you understand that gaps are consistent and not sporatic?  

No solid links?? Did you read the article I posted regarding human chromosome #2? If not, go back a page and read it please. I don't know about you, but to me (and probably everyone else who isn't in denial) that is a solid smoking gun. We can pinpoint the chromosomal fusion that resulted in us having one less chromosome pairings than the other great apes. Our 2nd chromosome has an extra large telomere (typically found on the ends of chromosomes) in the centre of it, and 2 centromeres instead of one (typically found in the middle) at the halfway points between the telomeres. 

You state in another post that fossil gaps are a problem. However, fossil gaps are simply evidence of one fact: fossilization doesn't happen all too often, so we only get a small percentage of the puzzle, but we find that our predictions are quite accurate whenever we find more pieces. We have a large number of primate skulls, and a gradual change of the skull to one that contains a bigger brain is something we can see. Similarly, we can see primate pelvises of varying proportions showing the gradual change that allowed for bipedalism (and far more painful birthing for the poor women who have to go through it). Of course, once again, the DNA evidence is enough. When the DNA was sequenced to find out how old our most recent common ancestors were, it fit within the range of estimates provided by fossil evidence. Of course, the range was quite a wide gap because for a long time people were unsure as to whether humans evolved concurrently in multiple places or only once in Africa. DNA evidence helped us confirm that the latter theory is correct, although interbreeding with neanderthals did occur, and is evidenced by DNA as well. That is consistent with where we find neanderthal fossils, and the fact that those of more recent African origin do not contain neanderthal DNA. 

So once again, do not say that there is a problem in the foundation concept of biology if you have no clue what you're talking about. You say

caposkia wrote:

Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution

I have just provided you with two separate types of evidence. Fossil evidence, and DNA evidence (which came later). The DNA evidence corroborated what we estimated using the fossil evidence. Can you tell me where this "no evidence" is? Can you come up with an actual problem in the theory? Failing to do so, what you should say is not "Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution". What you should say is "I don't understand the theory of evolution well enough for it to make any sense to me." So put up, or shut up. Nobody who does science in the field of biology doubts this. Any young earth creationists in the fields of biology (which sadly is possible) are not doing science at least when it comes to evaluating the theory of evolution. They are not leaving their biases at the door. That is what scientists should do; leave bias at the door, and follow the evidence. The evidence I have presented if I'm right, points to the theory of evolution being true. If you're right, it points to god being one hell of a prankster.

How? There is literally no way to verify this if the written word didn't exist. It's possible that people who conned their way to riches a generation ago could have conned a fake family history as well. You keep on asserting this, and accusing me of not knowing history. If you're right, then you're right, but by re-asserting it you are not convincing me. Show me a study that has been done that suggests that what you're saying is true. 

Sorry, but it's a law that I happen to agree with, and I would contend that you do as well. Because a murder law may have not existed back then, it does not mean that we can examine events of the time (real or mythical) and decide whether or not it would be a violation of the laws we have now come up with. In that light, I contend still that if it happened in any sense similar to what the bible says, it is murder. The book contends that everyone minus 8 people was an immoral thug. I don't think that the human species could have even reached a reasonable population number were that the case. Therefore, in the story, it would mean that god deemed them immoral for crimes that aren't real (but are in the bible) like disobedience to god, blasphemy, idolatry, etc., while at the same time not showing enough evidence for his existence. Even though I think that the old testament god is a thug, if I found him to be real and unoverthrowable, I would have no choice but to worship him. These people clearly were not convinced that he was real even though he was easily able to convince Noah. Then he killed everyone for their disbelief. Today, that would count as murder whichever way you cut it....or drown it. 

 

I would argue the same about you. I asked you "which" details. As far as the details you've ignored:

1. I brought up that the bible is not concise at all as to what people's immoral nature was to warrant their death by drowing.

2. I brought up that the bible does not posit that anyone was informed or warned of their immorality, and the impending punishment

3. I brought up that 8 people traversing the entirety of human populations to inform them of such was unfeasible, (especially since they had to simultaneously build a giant boat and corral 2 of each animal onto it of the clean ones, 7 of the clean, I forgot to add that part)

4. I brought up that if word were to travel from person to person, they wouldn't believe it anyway, hence it would be safe to assume that people would have been killed in the flood without knowing why. 

How did the people who weren't Noah & his family know about god? How did they know that they were immoral? And why did they continue to act the way they did if they knew that god was all powerful and resistance was futile?

Perhaps. However, for every verse that tells you that god is fair, righteous, and all-loving, there is another verse where he asks someone to slaughter his son (only to say "psyche!&quot or to stone to death wives who aren't virgins on their wedding nights, or to stone disobedient children, or to kill homosexuals, or personally kills people who splooge in the wrong place, or tell Jephthah to kill his daughter (and let him do it, unlike with Isaac)....I can go on. These things are not consistent with someone who is fair, righteous (although self-righteous maybe) and all-loving. It's easy to defend the "context of scripture" when you ignore the parts that are uncomfortable. If the god of the bible is real, he's a prick (at best!). 

You offered two options above which would be the 2 logical possibilities were the book true. Then you offer this third option here (poorly written I must add), which is a little like the first option, but far more accusatory. It implies that we're not so dumb, but we simply willingly deny him somehow based on our "own personal logic" even though logic isn't a matter of opinion. Logic just is. But your implication is clear. You are implying that we are deliberately denying him like those people that he drowned in the flood. My contention is that if he's real, he has not provided evidence. I require no mental gymnastics to justify this position. 

 

What thread have you been reading? I've referenced at least half a dozen specific studies from scientific journals on a variety of subjects, tons of archaelogical finds that have provided physical evidence, geological evidence that such a major flood didn't happen and I've only scratched the surface of the sheer amount of evidence available. None of which points towards a worldwide flood. The only evidence you have presented throughout the entire thread was an article for a creationist who you said you didn't believe and a news paper story about a drunk moose which was easily debunked. Yet despite this, you continue to claim that we "don't know" things that we do know. 

And if the story is not an accurate portrayal of regular events (like a human getting drunk), why would you believe the fantastic claims the story makes (like a worldwide flood)? I have stated several times that I wouldn't doubt the story is an exaggeration from a terrible flood that destroyed a village. We know those kinds of floods happen, we know that entire villages have been destroyed by such floods and it isn't the slightest bit surprising that those stories would be passed down orally and change over time. The vast majority of myth is based on real human experiences and flood myths are very common among any society based near water.

Because it is complex to you doesn't mean that the science is inaccurate. All you have done the entire DNA discussion is reveal that you are ignorant of genetics and how it works. Lineage and relationships are not determined by simply comparing DNA side by side and looking at what percentage is similar. While such studies are very informative and we have learned a lot from them, it is not useful in this case. Ancestry is determined by looking at specific sequences of DNA that have known mutation rates and are passed down in a predictable manner from parent to child.

I completely accept your choice to be ignorant, but I am going to point out when you are if you choose to put your ignorance into writing on the Internet.

Exactly, you changed your dating assumption when confronted with evidence- but instead of looking at 2 million years ago and asking "What evidence do we have available and what conclusions can we draw from it?" You assumed that your initial assumption of the flood story was true and proceeded to try to make a square peg fit into a round hole.

Nor am I presenting the Noah story as the basis of Christian belief. I am not addressing the existence of a god at all. From beginning to end in this thread, I have been addressing the Noah story and only going further when it was relevent in relation to the Noah story. And a lot of intelligent people are ignorant about all sorts of things. Ignorance is not stupidity, it is simply not knowing. The reason this discussion has focused on archaeology, history and genetics is because those are areas where I have a little knowledge and studied them as an amateur. While I haven't argued the impossibility of the story from the angle of meteorology, not because an argument can't be made, because meteorlogicallly that much rain is impossible. However, I am quite ignorant of meteorology so I am not capable of providing evidence to support that argument without putting in a lot of time studying something I am not that interested in.

What the fuck. I'm stopping here. Reread the damn thread. We obviously don't "agree" there is no evidence to discredit the story. I (and others) have provided several pieces of evidence that discredit the story. Every single post I have made has presented some evidence that I believe discredits the story. So how in the hell did we come to this "agreement"? It is bad enough when you just make stuff up regarding how genetics work or what we know/don't know regarding archaeology, but you can't seriously believe that we agree there isn't evidence.

Beyond Saving wrote:

What thread have you been reading? I've referenced at least half a dozen specific studies from scientific journals on a variety of subjects, tons of archaelogical finds that have provided physical evidence, geological evidence that such a major flood didn't happen and I've only scratched the surface of the sheer amount of evidence available. None of which points towards a worldwide flood. The only evidence you have presented throughout the entire thread was an article for a creationist who you said you didn't believe and a news paper story about a drunk moose which was easily debunked. Yet despite this, you continue to claim that we "don't know" things that we do know. 

wait.  You have evidence that something in history didn't happen!!!   Wow, you can prove a negative!  awesome.  So many atheists try to tell me that's not rational and not scientifically sound when I challenge them to prove to me that God does not exist.  I'm impressed... you're smarter than most Atheists it seems.

You have presented me with archaeology, geological evidences etc... none of which proves anything without a concrete date as to which you have not provided as to when this story is said to have taken place... Admit it, true or false, if you claim to have evidence that it didn't happen, you at least need to know the time frame in question... you don't.  no one does.

 

you believe you have proven it couldn't have happened any time.  I have shown you evidence from a YEC that such floods can happen... Regardless of what that YEC beleived about the evidence he presented, it did prove such floods are possible.  

 

I have also debunked the DNA claim, the no worldly flood claim, among others.  You seem to have forgotten to read the progression of the flood conversation and how "world wide" it could have been.

We've also discussed how incredible it is to believe that humans had no way of getting drunk way back when.  yet you still hold onto that belief as if that was your only defense for a poorly based religion.  

I get that you're trying to make me look incompetent here, but c'mon, you've got to do better than that.  People read these threads and are aware of things already discussed.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because it is complex to you doesn't mean that the science is inaccurate. All you have done the entire DNA discussion is reveal that you are ignorant of genetics and how it works. Lineage and relationships are not determined by simply comparing DNA side by side and looking at what percentage is similar. While such studies are very informative and we have learned a lot from them, it is not useful in this case. Ancestry is determined by looking at specific sequences of DNA that have known mutation rates and are passed down in a predictable manner from parent to child.

not to me... to the scientific world.  Ask any scientist that studies DNA and they will tell you it's complex.  

Similar percentages don't necessarily make a link.  Though it doesn't directly apply to the Neanderthal DNA discussion, it might be beneficial if you checked out the link I put in a response to Jabberwocky a post or 2 above.

Same here.  Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder.  The difference here is i don't look at you as ignorant, just misguided.  You have come to a logical conclusion just as many have based on what you know and what you were told.  

You become ignorant when you stop looking at the evidences and focus more on 'pointing out ignorance'.  That is basically code for; I'm right, you're wrong and there's nothing you can do or say that's going to change that.    

Do you think you're the first one who made that claim?  Trust me, it's a slippery slope.  Better stick with the facts and not a personal endevor to prove yourself right.  Egos get in the way of rational thought.

well, not really... many evidences have been presented from both sides.  I think much of what's available has been presented.  

Conclusion?  This story standing on its own has a lack of evidence to even discuss to this extent... No one can accept that though here for some reason.  There's no problem to initally claim this story has no evidence and therefore it didn't happen, but when I come back and claim there's no evidence to suggest either its place in history or it being work of complete fiction, suddenly there's evidence.  Why?   

meanwhile i do have the experience in meteorology and therefore the evidences I have presented confirm the possibility.  

  Sorry Beyond, I had inadvertantly disabled "receive PM's"    Problem has been corrected, thanks.

I don't know enough about the details of chromosomes to be able to tell you what is inaccurate in that link regarding the possiblity and/or probability of a chromosome fusion. I just don't know. However, I think it's far more likely that the majority of the scientific community (with an even bigger majority in the discipline of biology) is correct that such a fusion is indeed possible. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

That's fair. To use your analogy, evolution isn't like looking at 2 locations, finding no way across, and making it up. Evolution is more like finding a bike path in a valley, and finding it partially washed away (topical analogy to this thread too!). Do you assume from seeing the bike path that nobody ever could have used it to get from one end of the valley to the other? No. Do you assume that it always just used to lead to the river so that cyclists can ride into that? No you don't. You assume that the path changed due to something else. If you see a road next to a river that you know flooded recently that is not even useable anymore with only some tiny pieces of asphalt there, do you say "well, nobody could have EVER used that road?" or "Man, those construction workers were lazy, or had too little asphalt to do this job" or "Who the hell designed THIS road like this?" No. You. Don't! We make assumptions based on what we do know of how people build roads, and then try to figure out why it's different. Seeing a river nearby, and other nearby landscape showing evidence of higher water levels, we can conclude that the river flooded the road, and ruined it. Your analogy ignores important points.

Not to mention that the reason I used the analogy in the first place is to outline that for me to get from point A to point B, I have to physically travel the distance in between rather than teleport. The point is that evolution happens quite gradually. We know by comparing our DNA to other primates and then comparing say your DNA to your parents, we can make quite accurate predictions on how many generations it would take for a common ancestor of ours to split to ourselves, chimps, and bonobos. But I guess there's still no evidence.

no, there really isn't... see the link I posted above... I can see why scientists use the information we have to try and make that link, but it is a very unique case if what they claim is true as outlined in the link.   

jabberwocky wrote:

The DNA evidence alone is enough to show us that the theory is bulletproof, unless a finding is uncovered that actually proves it false (as said by J.B.S. Haldane, "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" is done. No such finding has EVER been found).

We can measure the rate of DNA change between yourself and your parents, and everyone else, and from that figure out the rate of change that is possible, and also the rate of change that is the most common. There is no animal that has ever been found with a DNA sequence that has puzzled biologists. All of it shows that it would have come from a common ancestor. Because of that, we could compare the DNA of any two creatures (or plants, or bacteria even) on Earth, and provide an estimate as to how many generations ago the common ancestor existed. Obviously that's with a bigger margin of error the more different the organisms are to each other.

If you have trouble believing that we descended from other primates with no help from a supernatural being:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

^^.....see wiki...and don't ever say that there are gaping holes in the unifying theory of all biology before you know anything CLOSE to enough about it to utter such a statement. Kenneth Miller (a Catholic believe it or not) said about the above something along the lines of "I believe in a creator, but not a deceptive one". He accepts (with no issue...and in fact insists) that this simply happened, and did NOT require any outside help. 

I love how because I don't agree with you, your automatic assumption is I don't understand it rather than rationalizing it.  That is a sign of someone who is using ad hoc statements to force their truth on others.   That's a very "religious" approach... just sayin'

Jabberwocky wrote:

No you don't. You can believe that us and plants had a common ancestor (which to my research seems to indeed be the case). Just because plants are a simpler form of life speaking in coloquial terms (where no brain is simpler by default) doesn't mean that we had to come from them. Did you even check what biologists believe before you posted that? I have a feeling you didn't. If I'm not quite certain about something I say, I typically do. 

Of course there are fossil gaps. Fossilization is a rare occurence, so we should expect gaps. What do you mean by "gaps are consistent and not sporatic?" Are you suggesting that we have very uniform gaps between species we find, therefore it suggests that there are no transitions? Because I would strongly disagree with that. I have not seen anything to suggest that the gaps are uniform. In fact, those who study biology honestly will tell you of each fossil what is more human-like, what is more chimp-like, what is more gorilla-like even. It shows that there is a transition because it does bear resemblance to both. If there IS something that shows a uniform disconnect between every fossil that has been classified, please provide proof. 

Creationists agree on most fossils on whether they're human or ape, because they show more attributes of one than the other. The ones that bear resemblance to both (it seems that Australopithecines are where it really starts to get muddled), real biologists will, once again, point to which features resemble what more. Creationists, on the other hand, will simply be split on whether the fossil is human or ape. While creationist dogma will always say that evolution isn't true, they don't have a consistent opinion on which australopithecines were what. This is because (in my opinion) creationists have that dogma, and make it up as they go along. When they see evidence of something showing both human and other ape-like attributes, they draw a line in the sand (with each creationist drawing a different line BTW) and say "this is a human fossil" or "this is an ape fossil". That is a ridiculous stance that is impossible to defend without lying (to oneself, AND others). 

So, as I've said, care to provide any actual problems in evolution? Once again, I repeat what Haldane said. Find me "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" or any other solid fossil that's in the wrong place that suggest that we didn't evolve as biologists claim. Find me ONE! I have provided you DNA evidence that is strong evidence to support relatively recent common ancestry between humans and all other living apes. Provide me one piece of evidence to show that I'm wrong. 

 

let's continue this with your comments on the link I provided.  That will bring more progression to this than anything I can say right now.

Jabberwocky wrote:

You offered two options above which would be the 2 logical possibilities were the book true. Then you offer this third option here (poorly written I must add), which is a little like the first option, but far more accusatory. It implies that we're not so dumb, but we simply willingly deny him somehow based on our "own personal logic" even though logic isn't a matter of opinion. Logic just is. But your implication is clear. You are implying that we are deliberately denying him like those people that he drowned in the flood. My contention is that if he's real, he has not provided evidence. I require no mental gymnastics to justify this position. 

you suggested above that God gave more evidence to His followers than to the non-believers.  Doesn't everyone have access to a Bible if they want to have one?  Can't you observe the eye-witness testimonies of those who claim to have God working in their lives if you want to?  it all comes down to choice.. if you don't want to see the evidences, then you won't see them.  e.g. if you don't want to hang around Believers, you won't see how God is working in their lives.  if you don't want to read scripture, you won't see the history of God's work.  

jabberwocky wrote:

What? That was very poorly written but I'll try to answer you. If the opposite is the case, that the bible is all myth, then it would follow that believers do accept false information and ignore facts, yes. In this thread, you contend that the flood was real. When it was brought up to you that people would have to be informed to be able to know that they were immoral (and at risk of this flood), you got caught in a situation where either our language was too primitive to explain, or people were spread too far apart to explain it to everyone. You are ignoring these facts, and simply asserting that the flood must have happened anyway. Also, above, you ignore facts about biology. You are accepting false information (the bible), and ignoring "true fact" (foundational concepts that tie all of biology together). 

The series of posts by me that this was answering proves the point that the ages old debate of who is ignoring "true fact" is never a progressive conversation.  Case closed.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I don't feel very cornered... but if that's how you feel... let's really jam me into that corner... what is it that truly put me in that corner so I have to face it head on and not shy away from it???  

Did Noah's family spread the word so long ago that language wasn't develped enough to explain it (impossible)? or

Did Noah's family spread the word once language was sufficient to explain it (at which point people would have been spread too far apart)?

These are the possibilites we have come up based on things you said. "Of course people were warned" (to paraphrase you) you said. The two things just listed above are absolute logical problems with the assertion that people were warned. Let's continue.

I honestly believe that they already knew and didn't need to be warned, reference to my Genesis quote about Gods spirit not dwelling with the people forever.  To appease your worldview that such an event would have to be spoken of and they would need to be notified, I did the math as to how logical it would be for word to spread in the time allotted... if you remember, no matter how you look at it, even with 1 person doing all the work.  As spread as people were, it was very logical that all could have known by word of mouth by the time the flood came.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I know today of the bible. I know it's a book. I know that a large chunk of the world population accept it as more than "just a book", despite calling the Quran, the Book of Mormon, older mythological texts "just books". Of course accepting or believing in it is a different story. There is not ample evidence for those who critically evaluate the book without bias to convince them that it's true. So my question here is the following:

Do you believe that atheists like myself are justified in saying that the evidence is not compelling enough to believe the bible to be true? Why or why not?

Nice question.  I like that one.  

Here's my perspective on that; I believe you are justified in the evidences you have accepted to believe what you believe... As far as all evidences taken into consideration, I believe it is not justified to believe the the Bible is not true. 

If I could justify your perspective; that the evidence is not compelling enough to believe the Bible to be true, then I myself would have to believe the Bible to not be true.  

jabberwocky wrote:

No. You have not. *1* You posited that it may be possible to have circumnavigated the globe by using a formula of distance travelled per day. You ignored problems with storing food back then (not often possible, no beef jerky back then...). You ignored harder terrain slowing progress. You ignored an ocean (and have offered no comment on whether or not a land bridge still existed between Eurasia and the Americas, or Asia and Australia for that matter, which creates a HUGE problem in explaining how the marsupials ended up in Australia under creationism). You ignored different languages (although if you believe in the tower of babel story, that hadn't happened yet, even though earlier verses posit that it did at the same time....another discussion I'd love to have...). Even if you solved ALL of those problems, you ignored people's likelihood to believe the stories and pass them on properly. This story really only works if you leave realism at the door. 

I ignore the problem with storing food... you ignore the fact that colonies typically did not spread more than a day's journey from each other

I ignore harder terrain.  you ignore that the math considers circumnavigating the globe, which is not logical at the time because people would not have been spread that far.

I ignore an ocean, you ignore that it was less than 50,000 years ago before oceans were crossed and the final consensus of this story was more like 2 million years ago... give or take a million.

I ignore different languages, but we haven't a clue about languages at the time... they may not have existed yet.  Babel happened after the flood according to Genesis.  What verses do you say posit that Babel did happen before?  (not to side track... just curious)

I ignored people's likelihood to believe the stories and pass them on properly... you ignore that belief has nothing to do with gosip... again Noah is building the worlds largest floating zoo... people are going to talk whether they believe in his purpose or not.  

Marsupials in Australia?  What happened to Pangea???   How far from the continent had Austrailia drifted at the time?  

Do you see the problem with your logic here?

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. You're claiming that someone doing something drastic for religious reasons makes it justified to consider that they're correct about the supernatural. Every single person I've seen in my lifetime do something drastic (like selling their possessions), has been wrong. 100% of them. Every single person to believe these things in my lifetime that I've ever seen, when making a specific claim that would be actually impressive if it came true, has been wrong. 

My question here is: Is it justified to have called those in 2012 awaiting the apparently impending rapture deluded, even BEFORE it happened? I would contend that it was, and it was confirmed when the rapture didn't occur. Now in your story it claims that the flood did. However, if the people in question believed in false gods, there may have been specific claims made there as well that didn't come true. If that was par for the course, their disbelief is justified. 

I do believe it was justified to have called those in 2012 deluded... A few reasons just from scripture alone let alone logic in life.  Matthew 24:36 AND Mark 13:32; "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, not the Son, but the Father alone." 

There are many places in scripture that talk about us preparing ourselves for the coming of our Lord, but I don't remember reading anywhere that part of the preparation should be selling all my posessions when I think the time has come.  Scriptural "preparation" has to do with repentance and making sure we're walking with God and not with Satan.

also the third issue from scripture alone:  a close study of the book of Revelation can lead one to conclude that this "rapture" time could actually span several years and thus we should more likely stock up for the coming time rather than sell everything if we think we're to ride out the storm per se'.  

So should we lump all claims of Gods work into those such stories where people were blatently diluded and didn't even read the very book they claim gave them the information they are following?  of course not, that's not logical.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Exactly. Then why do you keep asserting that there is enough evidence to say that a world-wide flood actually happened??

the same reason why you keep asserting that it didn't.  We both believe we have evidences to support our perspective... me, I believe there are evidences of God and many stories of scripture... based on those evidences I logically conclude that this story must also be true.  You believe there are world evidences that suggest this story did not happen.  Both conclusions are logical based on this story alone.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Double negatives, yay! NOT enough evidence to conclude that the word WASN'T spread. 0 reason to assume they DIDN'T know things WEREN'T going right. When you use this many double negatives, it shows you're trying to make false equivocations, and basically just repeat what I said with an extra negative. If you want to do this, then you concede that in the context of the bible, each position is equally viable. So it's 50/50. Either god's the holy of holies and righteous or he's a prick. Flip a coin! 

I should have said there's no reason to believe it didn't happen that way.  Though in my defense, you've been trying to prove a negative this whole time... that the flood didn't happen.

jabberwocky wrote:

 

killed Onan for "releasing" in the wrong place. According to the bible, god let satan fuck with Job to prove his loyalty. Is that morally ok? 

*disclaimer*

I know your whole statement is not above... I accidentally erased a part of it... due to the fact that the clipboard doesn't seem to be working rihgt, I didn't want to retype it... i did read it all though.

Considering that not only had Job gotten everything back 10 fold (er so) but also the countless people through the ages that the story of Job has helped through dark times, it was morally ok because Job would have saved more people because of his trials. 

Again that's one example of context and effect.    Another is killing Onan for "releasing" in the wrong place... was it really for his releasing or for his turning his back on God's command given directly to him?  

jabberwocky wrote:

Your entire argument here is "of course god is all-loving and all-good". Cite all the nice verses you want. But you have to then ignore all the wicked ones. If you're right about every detail flood-related, and all of the people outside of Noah's family knew, and god knew with 100% that humanity would have the least wickedness overall if every one of those people was killed off immediately, then I guess one would have to concede that not doing it would be worse. Of course humane deaths would be an improvement on drowning, but I guess in Christianity that's splitting hairs.

I love that argument from non-believers... we have to ignore the bad things to believe that God is good.... Have you ever thought of why the bad things are there?  Did God decide to put them there, or did people bring them there?  

...and a more humane death... what would you consider more humane?  What should God have done instead to wipe out all life?  Don't beat around the bush with God should have done it.. let's go with what you were saying above.  

jabberwocky wrote:

However, the story of Job is a little tougher. Job wasn't punished for something. Job was a play thing. Job was being fucked with. Job was a victim of god's ego. Job loves and worships god. Satan says "Of course, you give him so much! If it were all taken away, he would condemn you". "K Lucy(fer). Do your worst. He'll STILL love me. I could stop you from going too far because I'm god...but I won't. Keep him alive, but I will prove to you even if you make his life the most unbearable in human history, he will still love and worship me". But you say god's all-loving so you must be right!....????

the book of Job, one must look at the bigger picture... what came of that story and how has it affected people through the ages?  How many lives do you think were saved because of what Job went through?  I know of a few.  Was it wrong of God to put a faithful believer through torture to save possibly hundreds or thousands of lives?  Was it wrong to prove the level of faithfulness of God's followers and show all future generations the level of faith God seeks?  

I wouldn't expect non-beilevers to understand the last part.

Jabberwocky wrote:

True. Those cultures later in history did have their own gods, and were aware of others in the vicinity. You are positing a world-wide flood, which means they would have to have known of a god far outside their land. Either they didn't know, or god told them himself (where I wouldn't see them denying it if it was true and obvious). 

Also, if the people IN the land were aware, why deny him if he's more reasonable to believe in than their fake gods?

in thier minds He may not have been.  Honestly, I don't know.  In my mind, it doesn't make sense, but I wasn't there.  Consider that today though I see many people denying the true and obvious.  Just as you see me as denying the true and obvious.  is it so hard to believe that people could deny the obvious?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

No idea what you're just saying. I think you're just repeating my own arguments and trying (unsuccesfully I might add) to direct them at me, even in cases where they can't apply. 

Anyway, fine. 

uh... no.... I have been using that since my start on this site 6+ years ago.. you can reserach my forum history.  Has nothing to do with what you were saying.. though i find it ironic that you saw it as me repeating your own arguments, what could that suggest besides me trying to redirect your own arguments back to you?

jabberwocky wrote:

Life experience, science, history, archaeology, people group ancestry. Pick any one except life experience, as personal experience is not evidence to anyone but yourself (and if it seems dodgy, check your brain). My brother to this day is convinced that he saw a UFO while high once. However, he is also a reasonable person. He believes that he saw the UFO, but he also believes that it was not there. He believes that his senses played tricks on him no matter how convincing. Pick any of the above that I bolded. Your most compelling piece of evidence that points to the truth of a part of the bible that would make the rest of the book more believable as well, and convince me.

look at this as a cop out or not, but any one of those is a much longer conversation that should be on another thread.  It would detract from the OP.  To pick one though if you want to see details on History, I am currently in a thread with PJTS on that topic.  OT stories myth, legend or real.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes I've been deceived. Have you ever disobeyed an authority? "Don't do this because I say so" often is not sufficient for most people. Humans have the ability to undermine authority, and they have the ability to be deceived too. What does that prove? A command is not enough. 

does having the ability to do something make that something inevitable?  A command is not enough you're right, so there was a command with a consequence.  It's literally how we enforce all of our laws.. it is a command with a conseqence for breaking it.  Most people are able to follow them without issue... at least the bigger ones.  Honestly, think about it... if you were told on any level; "if you do this you will die" are you going to do it?  I wouldn't.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

CPS shouldn't be called, no. However, there are overprotective parents who might not leave a hot stove unsupervised, and remove the knobs when they're not around (if they feel the child can touch them). However, are parents considered irresponsible if they leave potentially harmful medicine around with the childproof caps off? CPS can be called then, yes, if the child ends up in hospital. The garden of eden story is more akin to leaving a child with the key to nuclear weapons, and not ensuring that the house is secure, and allowing your opponent in war's spies to easily slip in and convince the child to fire the things! If the story in the garden happened, it would have been to that point the biggest mistake in history. Nobody is without blame there, including god. 

You are only using analogies that serve to protect your god from criticism, and ignoring where they fall short. 

Whenever you don't have a good answer to the analogies you always resort to the "ignoring" excues.  i think I have proven time and again that not only do I NOT ignore anything presented, but if someone claims I ignore them i address them... AGAIN!  Do I really have to be redudant here?

I use analogies to try to help you understand my perspective.  not to protect God... God does not need my protection.. rather I need His.  

I see your analogy and from that I get your perspective of the garden story... however, your analogy assumes that the fruit was to never be touched ever in the existence of humanity.  I don't know for sure why God had put it in the garden, but it's logical that if it was within reach of Adam and Eve that God eventually had a plan that involved them eating of the fruit maybe when they were ready.  I would liken it more to a child getting access to an alcoholic bevereage.  Drinking it could definitely kill them, but as an adult, they would be more aware of its effects and the dangers and be more capable of using it responsibly.  

Obviously, you haven't done me the courtesy of reading my posts. I have addressed this exact same sarcastic response of yours twice already. 

Of course no one does. THAT IS MY POINT. IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AT ANY DATE. Basic logic dictates that if it couldn't have happened after 2mya and it could not have happened exactly 2mya and it could not have happened earlier than 2mya, then it could not have happened ever. You have conceded that it couldn't have happened more recently, apparently you still believe it could have happened earlier although imo the evidence against it is overwhelming (not to mention so blatantly common sensical that a 4 year old could figure it out.)

You don't even understand the argument being made from your own source. Go back and read it again. He didn't find new evidence, he reinterpreted existing evidence and his interpretation absolutely relies on the Earth being roughly 6,000 years old. If the Earth is older, than his interpretation is disproven.

caposkia wrote:

 

I have also debunked the DNA claim, the no worldly flood claim, among others.  You seem to have forgotten to read the progression of the flood conversation and how "world wide" it could have been.

Where did you do all this debunking? You can't debunk without presenting evidence and to date you have only presented a single source, which you stated you didn't find credible. 

It isn't incredible at all. Not every human gets drunk. In fact, the only people who get drunk are people who drink alcohol. Some of us do that very often, many others never drink it at all. Even in modern society where alcohol is cheap and easy to come by, some people live their whole lives without tasting alcohol. We have fairly solid evidence of approximately when alcohol production was started in various cultures. Alcohol production requires certain things, most notably the invention of some sort of vessel to hold the alcohol. You do know that people haven't always had the tools to make jars?

I don't have to try to make you look incompetent. I'll let your own words speak for you. 

Well yeah, it is complex, that wasn't my point. My point is that just because it is complex is not a good reason to dismiss it. It is precisely BECAUSE it is complex that we can learn so much from studying it. And I read your link- once again you run to the YEC crowd for your scientific information. Why do you find them to be an authority on genetics, yet you dispute their conclusions on the age of the Earth?  

I suggest you spend more time reading scientific journals that present studies that have actually been peer reviewed and consist of falsifiable hypotheses that are actually tested rigorously. My favorite starting point is Jstor.org, their free side is decent and their pay side is affordable and worth every penny. You will find that geneticists don't make a link simply based on similar percentages. It is a lot more involved than that.  

If there is something I don't know then I am ignorant, not misguided. And you will notice, I have not simply stated that "I'm right, you're wrong", I have provided links to back up pretty much every point I felt was relevant enough to require evidence to support it. Thus far, you have provided virtually none. Instead, you have simply created new hypotheses that you have not supported with any evidence. Not that there is anything wrong with a hypothesis, it is the first step in learning. Although, I think it is polite to at least look for some supporting evidence to show that the hypothesis is plausible rather than expecting me to put in all the grunt work. Fortunately, your hypotheses have all had glaring errors that providing evidence showing they are weak hasn't required a terrible amount of effort and rarely even required me to look outside of my bookmarks. If there is anything you know that is relevant to any of this, please do point out my ignorance and provide me a source so I can fix it. 

Where the hell have you presented evidence? So far, virtually all the evidence presented has made the story dubious at best.  

The story lacks evidence in favor of it occurring. There is, and always has been, a significant amount of evidence that such a flood didn't occur and very good reason to believe that such a flood would be impossible. There is no evidence suggesting its place in history except the story itself- although the story itself actually makes dating it very easy. It refers to technologies that existed during a period of time that we know very well and from the technologies that existed in the story, we can infer that the setting of the story is occurred later than 5,000 BC. Much like when watching any movie you can infer the time period the movie takes place in. It is only when it is easily shown that the events couldn't have actually occurred at that time that suddenly the story becomes hard to date for you and you started with speculation worthy of a crappy shoestring budget sci fi show. 

Well, then why don't you fix some of my ignorance? I haven't seen you present any evidence that such a flood is meteorologically possible, although those questions were brought up in the OP. Why don't we go that direction, because quite frankly I am sick to death of beating the dead horse with the problems regarding the dating and it is obvious you either don't have or won't share any evidence supporting your hypothesis that it occurred 2mya.

So let's talk meteorology, but you are going to have to do the heavy lifting here, because as I stated I am quite ignorant of the subject.

1. For starters, how much rain would it take to flood the entire world?

2. Where did all that water come from, and how did clouds that dense form?

3. Is there any meteorlogical evidence that suggests such a thing is possible?

 

I propose that we start with the assumption that the story was slightly exaggerated. After all, it wouldn't actually require covering all the mountains to kill virtually everything. Maybe we should assume that the Earth was covered by water 1 mile above sea level? Unless you have reason to select a better number. So that would be 196.9 cubic miles of water that would need to form clouds and rain in 40 days, right?

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't know enough about the details of chromosomes to be able to tell you what is inaccurate in that link regarding the possiblity and/or probability of a chromosome fusion. I just don't know. However, I think it's far more likely that the majority of the scientific community (with an even bigger majority in the discipline of biology) is correct that such a fusion is indeed possible. 

There is absolute proof that it is possible, and it isn't even that rare. Approximately 1 out of 1000 people are born with fused chromosomes. It is called Robertsonian translocation. And if two people with the same chromosomes fused have a child, that child will have 44 chromosomes. In a large population, it is unlikely that such a mutation is going to take over given the higher than average rates of miscarriages. However, genetic mutations spread much faster in small populations, especially small populations with high levels of inbreeding which raises the odds of two people with the same mutation breeding. It is completely reasonable to believe that a small colony of one of our ancestors developed this mutation. Denisovans and Neanderthals both shared our chromosome structure, so it is believed to have happened before we split from our common ancestor. Which ancestor is an issue open to speculation and debate.  

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124

http://biomedres.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/171-174-Bo_Wang.1584046.pdf

thats' fine.  

The first issue I have with your conclusion above is you come across as assuming AIG's intentions.  You also go onto say this alternate understanding is not addressed by teh scientific community... OF course it is.  This is ages old.  AIG didn't come up with that article on their own.  Both articles use facts to back up their claims.  Both the fused chromosome and the mutation (I think that's what they said) are fact, proven in DNA and history.  The bigger question is, when it comes to this ultimate link between humans and chimps, who's right?  Both sides feel their evidence is conclusive, but to a neutral party, neither are because again both use facts that are true in different instances.  in this particular instance, we all know both can't be true, so the age old question at this point is who's right and why?  I see missing links in the connection between humans and chimps.... they see the fused chromosome.  They also however admit to the missing links, but are basinig the full conclusion on this fusion at this point.  Typically one peice of evidence out of many does not determine a solid conclusion and I stand by that logic.  

 

I understand where you stand in understanding these articles.   We can't go into this assuming any sources is or is not credible until we have evidence to prove it without question.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well I addressed that above (albeit written badly, but between my post and the one below it, I think that there is more than ample evidence to state that human chromosome 2 is great evidence of common ancestry with other primates. Also, I want to add something here (since I'm not as tired as last night, and I can't edit that post). If we're right, and the world's biologists are correct, then it means that all life (including us) on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. Further, it means that our closest cousins alive today that aren't humans are chimpanzees and bonobos. Further yet are other apes. 

However, if we're wrong and you're right, it means that either everyone who is an actual expert in biology is 100% wrong about a major foundational concept of the entire scientific discipline, or they're involved in a conspiracy surrounding it. If it's the latter, then how come not one person has come clean? The more people involved in a conspiracy, the more likely it is that it will come out (or people involved will randomly start dropping dead under mysterious circumstances). That is hideously unlikely. If it's the former, it means that your link is actually a legitimate argument against biology, but biologists for some reason don't want to even address it. Neither of these possibilites make sense really.

really?  it doesn't make sense to you that biologists deemed knowledgeable and credible in thier field might not want to be proven wrong?  I don't think it's a conspiracy, but I do think that a lot of people in genearal on both sides of the fence like to avoid addressing issues that might ultimately expose their perspective as being flawed. 

jabberwocky wrote:

Incorrect. You're not wrong because you disagree with me. The only person here who is taking the stance of "disgreeing with figure X means you are wrong" is you. You are stating that I'm wrong because I don't find evidence of your god compelling. You are saying that I am denying some evidence (without ever actually providing anything credible). 

To accuse me of employing an ad-hoc argument is hilarious. I explained how we have come to the conclusion (especially now with our knowledge of DNA) that we evolved from a common ancestor of a chimpanzee. Compare your DNA to dad's, grandpa's, great grandpa's, etc. Measure the rate of change. Compare it to a chimpanzee, and we find that the time required for such change puts us at a date consistent with radiometric dating of the fossil record. These studies of course being carried out independantly. Then, when the DNA is examined closer (as shown in the link) we see that our prediction based on incomplete information seems to be accurate. Our information is still incomplete. However, we made a prediction based on what we knew, and when other evidence came in, it corroborated the prediction. This is exactly how science works. 

To add to this, since speciation has been demonstrated in a lab now, creationists have had to concede that point. Speciation occurs. Deal with it. Also, the lines between species can get blurred, where you can have 3 distinct species, where one is reproductively compatible with the other 2, but those other 2 are reproductively incompatible. Since creationists have been forced to concede this point, it creates a huge problem, which is the following (that nobody has ever addressed to me when asked). If genes can diverge enough to the point where two animals, which we know with 100% certainty had a common ancestor, are no longer reproductively compatible, what biological mechanism prevents them from diverging further indefinitely? The failure of creationists to provide an answer to this question is a WAY bigger problem for creationists than some fossil gaps are for people who accept the hard work of brilliant biologists. Obviously the link that follows is satire, but it drives the point home well (plus, it's hilarious!) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ

This is seriously how you sound to me. This link is meant to be funny, and might offend a creationist, but if you tell me that the orangutan debating Farnsworth is right there (which is exactly what you are asserting by claiming that gaps exist in the theory of evolution) then I....I am speechless.

Also, disagreeing with me doesn't mean you're wrong by default (like it does in your opinion when I disagree with your god) but in this case you are demonstrably wrong. 

speciation does not prove a darwinistic common ancestor, only that a genus can yeild many species and continuously branch out.  There are believers who think that animals can't breed new species within the same genus, but that's not against scripture where "kind" and genus are from what I understand the same thing.  

love Futurama btw

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your link was addressed by me already, and by another poster as well (who either researched this more than I did, or has a background in it). So, I will press you again, address what I've said here regarding creationists and their classification of australopithecines. My assertion is that they disagree on which are human and which are ape, because they refuse to acknowledge a common ancestor. Kent Hovind once said when pressed on discrepancies in creationism, the specific example being disagreements in details between himself and Ken Ham, something along the lines of: Ken Ham and I disagree on minor details, but overwhelmingly we agree on everything. The parts where we don't agree, he's wrong and I'm right. Now guess how much time Kent spend elaborating on the details, and WHY he's right, and Ken Ham's wrong? I'll give you a clue. It's less than one Planck time. Why? Because creationism is all bullshit. All of it! So, which australopithecines are human, and which are not? Why? If you fail to find an answer to these questions, this creates giant gaps in YOUR assertion (I say assertion because I have found nothing to suggest that creationism is scientifically testable so it can't be a hypothesis let alone a theory!).

The fact remains that you have proposed a number of gaps in the theory of evolution. Fossil gaps (which are to be expected since fossilizatin is a relatively rare event) and problems with chromosome fusion (which aren't actually problems when you correctly assess that us and chimps had a common ancestor, rather than us evolving from beings that were genetically identical to modern chimps). The gaps in your assertion include the following. How the hell 8 people corralled every animal required onto the boat. How the hell they got enough food for a year on it (at ~1/3 the size of the titanic) How the hell they got a wooden boat to float for a year in the biggest flood ever. How they managed to pick up (and drop off) ALL of the marsupials in Australia (if it was not waterlocked, how the marsupials knew to go there and only there?). I can keep going if I had the time. You have addressed 0 of these points. I have addressed your purported problems with evolution, and it proves something more. Creationism doesn't explain a damn thing. The entire point of creationism is 2 things. #1 is to say "the bible is correct". #2 is to do a bad job of finding problems with evolution. When taken to task to answer problems like I've just posed, they attempt to just gloss it over. Face it. You're wrong. 

 

yet the link provided by Beyond Saving (I think it was) above stated directly that there is no evidence of the connection between humans and chimps, rather it is a theory loosely based on the fusion idea, which the articles do prove can happen, but go on to say it's not benificial, rather it hurts the affected's ability to reproduce... that doesn't sound promising for the theory to me.  

The bible isn't evidence. It is the claim. The bible can not possibly prove itself, but it can disprove itself (this goes for ANY text ever btw, so I'm not just attacking the bible here). If something is internally incoherent, it can't be 100% true by default. I can't observe someone's prior experiences. I can only take their word for it. Once again, every time you post you forget that I was religious before. I believed it all. I believed when people told me of such experiences. Also, once again, I've read scripture. I see in it the words of men who would today be considered barbaric, and nothing more. 

What the hell does that even mean? How does that close any case? You didn't address anything I said there, and instead offered up gibberish. 

Did Noah's family spread the word so long ago that language wasn't develped enough to explain it (impossible)? or

Did Noah's family spread the word once language was sufficient to explain it (at which point people would have been spread too far apart)?

These are the possibilites we have come up based on things you said. "Of course people were warned" (to paraphrase you) you said. The two things just listed above are absolute logical problems with the assertion that people were warned. Let's continue.

You believe that they already knew and didn't need to be warned? Then why did you hilariously try to prove that they did? I guarantee you if this was real and I knew it, I wouldn't be doing this. 

So you believe that I am ignoring evidence then? Name one piece of evidence I am ignoring. Just one.

What the hell does colonies being close by have to do with it? We know humanity was spread out far. What certainty do you have that they were spread out a day max from eachother, that they weren't hostile towards one another (surely if they were evil, they would be likely to be hostile to Noah rather than receptive to his message). Ridiculous. 

Math....circumnavigating the globe....people wouldn't have been spread that far...gibberish. Be concise. 

The final consensus of the time this story took place (as posited by yourself) is ~ 2 million years ago...language/speech itself is estimated to be only 150 to 350 thousand years old. That would be quite a gap to cross). But then....ooohhh so you DO believe that the tower of Babel story happened. Ok. Why is it bullshit? It falls into the same trap as creationism doesn. Which animals were made, and which evolved? Here, which languages were made, and which evolved? Surely you don't believe that Polish and Ukrainian both came about during that event? If so, why are they so similar? Why can I understand a good percentage of Ukrainian while never learning it? The tower of babel is also a very ridiculous story. As far as which verses say that languages existed before, it mentions it 3 times in Genesis 10, which is literally the chapter that precedes the babel story. Better yet, one mention is in the penultimate verse. So starting at Genesis 10:31, the bible reads as so: 31 These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

32 These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.

11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 

To believe that this could possibly be true is to be deluded to a degree beyond my comprehension. I never believed these things to be true, and it's learning about the bible that helped lead me to drop my irrational belief in Christianity. 

What happened to Pangaea? If your dating is at 2 million years (which doesn't work anyway, but let's humour it for a moment), then the part of Pangaea that connected Australia to the large land mass had begun to depart 138-148 million years before. 2 million years ago, the majority of the distance covered would have already been covered. Not only how did the marsupials get there, but how did they know to go there, and only there? And how did other animals know not to? Geographic distribution can NOT be explained by creationism. I don't think they've even tried before! Under the theory of evolution, it makes perfect sense.

No I don't see the problem with my logic here, for two reasons. 1. I don't have my own logic. Logic just is. 2. When you spout crap like "what happened to Pangea?" clearly neglecting to even look up the dates, this isn't even a question of logic. It is a question of you not researching your topic before you post about it. The ignorance of logic from you comes after that. The dating problem with Pangaea I just mentioned will undoubtedly be ignored or glossed over by you. The reason for that is that you believe that the flood happened based on the bible being true. You believe the bible to be true for other reasons (which you rarely if ever address, but you did mention something recently). So even when there are dozens of easy to identify problems with the flood myth that make it logically impossible, you still stick to the story that "it happened". People can make mistakes in logic, even myself. However, the only blatant ignorer of logic in this thread (at least for the last many pages) is you Cap. 

And in the time of Noah, what book did the illiterate people have? How did THEY know? How were they to know that this was legitimately going to happen? Some guy building a floating wooden zoo is not enough, I'm sorry.

No, it is NOT the same reason. Myself, Beyond Saving, and others, have logically eliminated any time in history that the flood could have occurred as you claim it did. There are problems with either language or geographic dispersion (when it comes to informing the world of the impending calamity), where the water came from/went (and why no geological evidence of a massive world-wide flood exists). There are problems with homosapiens not existing yet as per your timeline. There are problems with neanderthal interbreeding. There are problems with geographic distribution of animals. There are problems with space and food on the ark. There are countless problems that you simply choose to gloss over. Each one of the problems I just posited on their own are either a major hit, or a complete knockout hit to the validity of the flood story. You are the one making a claim that an event happened. We have logically eliminated it from being possible. The reason to assert and the type of evidence between what I am presenting, and what you are presenting, couldn't be any more different. It is a hobby of yours in this thread to attempt to use our arguments against us when they don't apply, or say that we're all the same, or say that we can't disprove it in the same way that you can't prove it (even though we HAVE disproven it). 

Once again, death for disobedience. Totalitarianism. Also, with Job, did Job in the story know why his misfortune fell upon him? At the end, he felt his praising of god wasn't in vain, because all got better. Of course to prove a point to Satan, god let him kill Job's family. How is that ok? 

Hahahahaha what? You know several....SEVERAL people who were saved because of what Job went through? How?