|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:19 PM
Posts: 333,
Visits: 605
|
|
Henry Mencken (11/13/2009)
Joshua Zambrano (11/13/2009)
Henry Mencken (11/13/2009)
Coincidentally, if a flood really did occur, you'd expect that we'd see some actual, hard, scientific evidence for it. Especially a worldwide flood that was so recent. None of that exists, though so you're SOL.
not to mention the Biblical flood which is supported by flood legends across major cultures worldwide, as well as evidence of rapid sedimentation such as fossilized starfish hovering over clams they were devouring (Hamilton sandstone, State Museum at Albany), mixed fossil deposits containing insects, snails, coral, and plant life from both tropical and arctic zones including pine leaves of the types found in both Japan and North America (amber beds in Poland as reported by Wilfred Francis in 'Coal: Its Formation and Composition'), and the very act of animal fossilization which requires rapid covering of a carcase before the oxygen bacteria need can aid in its destruction (which does not fit the slow deposition rates associated with dead animals sinking into marshes, as evolutionists suggest, but would fit the concept of a worldwide flood).
I told you why I don't care to. You've made up your mind and I simply don't have the time to devote
In Summary: First you say I have no hard scientific evidence for it. Then I point out I already referenced said evidence. Now you're saying you don't have time to address it, and just throw out more 'fail' comments. Well, I'll agree with you on one thing, there's certainly been a 'Fail' at work here.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Last Login: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:09 PM
Posts: 97,
Visits: 132
|
|
The first part, yeah, pretty much. It's hypocritical of me, but I don't really care because, as I've already said, you've reached your conclusion and then searched for evidence that supports that, but science works the other way around.
I'll ask you this: where #### did all that water come from? Rain isn't just water from the sky-sea leaking through the dome that holds it up like the old Jews thought, you know. To flood the earth would have taken more water than has ever been on this planet.
Henry, The profanity is not necessary. Feel free to debate, discuss & disagree, but leave the cursing behind. --- Admin.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:19 PM
Posts: 333,
Visits: 605
|
|
Henry Mencken (11/15/2009)
The first part, yeah, pretty much. It's hypocritical of me, but I don't really care because, as I've already said, you've reached your conclusion and then searched for evidence that supports that, but science works the other way around.
Science, yes, evolution, no. You can't honestly tell me you've followed the news of evolution discoveries the last decade and tell me they're unbiased when trying desperately to find science in favor of their theory at all costs. I mean, just look at the difference in naming conventions used to try and declare something part of evolution. They named the 'Laotian Rock Rat' the 'Rat-Squirrel' when they thought it a missing link, before finding that it was alive today. And their attempt to come up with all sorts of theories on how the universe could've started only to have them debunked by scientific discoveries (Steady State, Oscillating Universe, etc.). Evolutionists perpetuate their myths of evolution as science by very obviously attempting at all times to find discoveries in favor of evolution, or framing them in the news or their statements to pass them off as supportive. Then, when discoveries are found that debunk their ideas or claims, they get little if any press, are removed from scientific journals or publications, and generally get swept under the rug. This news about ##### habilis and erectus living at the same time was a major blow to evolution, but now you can barely find the news on it anywhere at all, even though it was a huge discovery at the time.
As pointed out by this professor, "It seems that every hominoid/hominid species that has caused great excitement as 'our earliest human/pre-human ancestor' has ultimately been re-cast as an "aunt/uncle" species not in our direct line. This is true of: Australopithecus africanus; ##### habilis; ##### erectus; and even for the earliest discovered hominid, ##### sapiens neanderthalensis.
In the last case, the fossils were first found in the 19th century, understood to be of ancient origin only in the early twentieth century, and realized to be not the direct ancestor of H. Sapiens sapiens only a generation or two ago, when it was finally understood that Sapiens sapiens emerged from Africa at a much later date and merely overlapped temporally with neanderthalensis. "
I'll ask you this: where #### did all that water come from? Rain isn't just water from the sky-sea leaking through the dome that holds it up like the old Jews thought, you know. To flood the earth would have taken more water than has ever been on this planet.
First of all, you're not accounting for the rise of the mountains over time. It is more likely that the earth was more level at the time since we recognize that mountains tend to build up geologically over thousands of years. Secondly, between the atmosphere, the ice caps, and the bodies of water, there is quite a bit of water on this planet. What is global warming but the fear that warming will heat ice caps to the point where virtually the whole world is flooded? It seems as though your movement is willing to recognize global warming can create a flood, but a flood can not create a flood.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Last Login: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:09 PM
Posts: 97,
Visits: 132
|
|
You know what's great about the scientific method? If something comes along to challenge a theory or belief, the scientific method dictates how to adopt new evidence and change preexisting thought. Your position does nothing of the sort. False claims about what an organism is thought to be are not crippling blows, the theories change around new evidence all the time. That's how knowledge works, that's how science works. Those ancient hominids may have been hypothesized at the time to be links, but we are actually capable of dismissing hypothesis, as you are not. Also, just because it's alive today does not necessarily mean it's not a missing link, and that you think so shows a deep misunderstanding of what evolution is.
And no, the fear of global warming is not that the earth will flood and Kevin Costner will be a hero. Again, you have no idea what global climate change is actually about. If the ice caps melted it would take away, like, most of Panama, parts of coastal states and countries, but by no means would it flood the entire earth.
And what you're proposing here is that those mountains that were low enough to be flooded over in the biblical flood were very suddenly as high as they were talked about later in the OT? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? A few hundred years after Moses, suddenly you've got Mt. Sinai? Doesn't follow.
And something that just occurred to me, wouldn't the biblical flood have wiped out all other civilizations at the same time it happened? Why, then, do we have records from Egyptian civilizations before and after the flood with no mention of everybody in their entire world dying? Did Moses get off his ark and bang his wife like there was no tomorrow to completely repopulate the entire world, and the Egyptians just sort of went back home after she gave birth to them without nary a thought?
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, December 04, 2009 10:16 PM
Posts: 220,
Visits: 389
|
|
Man, I gotta say the tone and traffic around this site are declining at about the same rate. This argument is just plain silly and childish. It is not worthy of a once great political party. Imagine, just for a second, some independent voter stumbling by thinking to himself: "Hmm, I wonder what the Republican's think about Education Policy."
Naturally he would click on the "Education" section and perhaps select this thread at random. I doubt he would manage to read this far before he "evolved" into a Democrat or Canadian or any-darned-thing-but Republican.
Mods- shut this thread down. These guys are embarassing themselves and us all by association. Guys, try to remember what this site is FOR.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, March 13, 2010 12:36 AM
Posts: 129,
Visits: 297
|
|
This entire debate derived out of the question: "Should Republicans affiliate with anti-science philosophy?" It deteriorated into a evolution versus creationism argument. (It also argued some of the current battles: Global Warming, etc.)
I'm sorry, but to me, the ones arguing the loudest against things like global warming are those being funding by those corporations that have an axe to grind. These are the same type of people as the Tobacco executives who swore on oath before Congress that Tobacco was non-addictive and that nothing was done to increase its potency. Science is good when they use it, and bad when it might cost them.
On the other debate: If G*d can be involved in every part of our lives can't evolution describe one of the tools he uses?
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, December 04, 2009 10:16 PM
Posts: 220,
Visits: 389
|
|
Jerry Bezanson (11/18/2009)
This entire debate derived out of the question: "Should Republicans affiliate with anti-science philosophy?" It deteriorated into a evolution versus creationism argument. (It also argued some of the current battles: Global Warming, etc.)
I'm sorry, but to me, the ones arguing the loudest against things like global warming are those being funding by those corporations that have an axe to grind. These are the same type of people as the Tobacco executives who swore on oath before Congress that Tobacco was non-addictive and that nothing was done to increase its potency. Science is good when they use it, and bad when it might cost them.
On the other debate: If G*d can be involved in every part of our lives can't evolution describe one of the tools he uses?
I executed a perfect threadkill but NO, you just couldn't leave it alone...
Let This Thing Die.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:29 AM
Posts: 81,
Visits: 125
|
|
Malcom Reynolds (11/17/2009)
Man, I gotta say the tone and traffic around this site are declining at about the same rate. This argument is just plain silly and childish. It is not worthy of a once great political party. Imagine, just for a second, some independent voter stumbling by thinking to himself: "Hmm, I wonder what the Republican's think about Education Policy."
Naturally he would click on the "Education" section and perhaps select this thread at random. I doubt he would manage to read this far before he "evolved" into a Democrat or Canadian or any-darned-thing-but Republican.
Mods- shut this thread down. These guys are embarassing themselves and us all by association. Guys, try to remember what this site is FOR.
I second that motion. It is clear the GOP and America knows nothing about science. The people who are so adamant about these wedge issues and unwilling to see the validity of opposition; this is killing our GOP. The crazy people are running the show.
As a side not: No one could answer my question correctly "What is evolution?". So I will answer it for you. Evolution is change. Darwin was foresighted to select such a vague word. It could mean just about anything and so at some point it's really not worth arguing. Many people have taken issue with Darwin's slow gradual evolution, probably the most notable would be Stephen J. Gould. Gould took issue based on the fossil record and was an "Evolutionist" himself. The point is that many people have discredited Darwins formulation of change based on evidence. Yet, we still call the study of Biological change Evolution and this is confusing to laymen. The term and study of evolution is broad and lacks significant meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:19 PM
Posts: 333,
Visits: 605
|
|
Henry Mencken (11/16/2009)
You know what's great about the scientific method? If something comes along to challenge a theory or belief, the scientific method dictates how to adopt new evidence and change preexisting thought. Your position does nothing of the sort. False claims about what an organism is thought to be are not crippling blows, the theories change around new evidence all the time. That's how knowledge works, that's how science works. Those ancient hominids may have been hypothesized at the time to be links, but we are actually capable of dismissing hypothesis, as you are not.
The scientific method is not able to address historical evidence though, since it deals only with that which is testable and observable; repeatable. We can't recreate historical events unless time travel becomes a reality. This is why those citing the scientific method when historical events are at issue make a serious mistake, in not recognizing that historians rely on different proofs for the authenticity of documents than the scientific method. The scientific method itself is an incomplete and imperfect way of evaluating, in other words, at least when it comes to anything from the past. It can never prove anything from the past, only from the present.
Since we're talking about historical events and proofs here, I am not sure why you bring this up. I notice that no matter how many missing links show up, you are ultimately unwilling to dismiss your basic religious belief, that no God exists. No matter what proof occurs against evolution, evolutionists will always, continuously use this as their basis of assumption, that God does not exist, and emphatically seek to construct all theories with that as an assumed impossibility. The scientific method only provides for creation of hypotheses, it does not remove in and of itself the bias of those making the hypotheses. Evolutionists may use the scientific method, and still use bias in forming their hypotheses.
In other words, you can test a hypothesis for how God could not exist and be proven false, so you think up another hypothesis denying God's existence, and it's proven false, and keep repeating this. This is what the evolution establishment does. I would argue that more proof against is not found simply because there is far less looking done for it by the scientific establishment - they ultimately just don't want to find it, even if it is there. The scientific method is simply a procedure. It does not remove bias from the original hypotheses, and you seem to be addressing it as something other than it is.
Also, just because it's alive today does not necessarily mean it's not a missing link, and that you think so shows a deep misunderstanding of what evolution is.
Nice use of the straw man fallacy. We both know I said nothing of the kind. If you continue to mis-state my arguments so that you can more easily attack them, I will just continue calling you out on it.
And no, the fear of global warming is not that the earth will flood and Kevin Costner will be a hero. Again, you have no idea what global climate change is actually about. If the ice caps melted it would take away, like, most of Panama, parts of coastal states and countries, but by no means would it flood the entire earth.
And what you're proposing here is that those mountains that were low enough to be flooded over in the biblical flood were very suddenly as high as they were talked about later in the OT? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? A few hundred years after Moses, suddenly you've got Mt. Sinai? Doesn't follow.
The flood didn't occur during Moses' time. Going by the genealogies in the Bible, the Flood would've occurred about 1671 years after the creation of Adam. Moses and Mt. Sinai would've been about 2614 to 2734 years after the creation of Adam. That's a 1000 year difference, not a few hundred. Plus, it was recognized there were some mountains at the time of the flood (like Mt. Ararat). And finally, if there was volcanic activity during the flood ('the fountains of the deep broke up' - Genesis 7:11) may have also heightened geologic mountain-forming.
As one last point, new research suggests these 'fountains of the deep' very well may exist. If so, your argument against not enough water would instantly and utterly be destroyed.
As quoted from a March 7th, 2002 National Geographic article titled 'Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas':
"Molten rocks deep in the earths interior may be surprisingly wet, Japanese researchers say. From lab experiments, they have concluded there may be more H2O deep underground than in all oceans, lakes, and rivers combined.
The scientists first heated 'mineral cocktails' to a white-hot 1600 degrees Celsius (2900 degrees Fahrenheit) and squeezed them until the pressure reached more than three million pounds per square inch (200,000 kilograms per square centimeter). Then they cooked the samples for an hour.
The experiments replicated the environment and conditions deep in the Earth.
Based on what they witnessed in their lab, the researchers concluded that more water probably exists deep within the Earth than is present on Earth's surface—as much as five times more.
'Our results suggest that the lower mantle can potentially store considerable amounts of water,' said Motohiko Murakami of the Tokyo Institute of Technology, where the experiments were conducted."
And something that just occurred to me, wouldn't the biblical flood have wiped out all other civilizations at the same time it happened? Why, then, do we have records from Egyptian civilizations before and after the flood with no mention of everybody in their entire world dying? Did Moses get off his ark and bang his wife like there was no tomorrow to completely repopulate the entire world, and the Egyptians just sort of went back home after she gave birth to them without nary a thought?
Yes, the flood would have wiped out other civilizations. And the Babylonian and Mesopotamian cultures that were in the Egyptian region very early on do have flood legends. The Egyptians do have plenty of flood legends, the trouble is that being near the Nile, they have so many flood references it would be difficult to find one about an ancient flood. Furthermore, their unusual familiarity with regular flooding may have resulted in their placing less emphasis on a worldwide flood.
Even if there was no reference in this one culture, it would still be a rare exception among ancient cultures, and hardly proof given how many cultures do provide references to an ancient flood. That would be like saying if 9 ancient cultures provide reference but one didn't, that the one would mean the flood couldn't have occurred, which is what I think you're trying to somewhat dishonestly do.
However, nevertheless, there still may be reference to a worldwide flood in Egyptian legends.
On TourEgypt.com's website, it is mentioned "In a dialogue between Atum and Osiris in the Book of the Dead, Atum states that he will eventually destroy the world, submerging gods, men and Egypt back into the primal waters (Nun), which were all that existed at the beginning of time. In this nonexistence, Atum and Osiris will survive in the form of serpents."
This passage is also referenced in an article on Encyclopedia.jrank.org.
According to the 'Book of the Dead', "The water-flood is given to him, he hath become the master thereof in the form of Hapi. I, the am khent Nefer-uben-f, open the doors of heaven. Thoth hath opened to me the doors of Qebh (the Celestial Waters). Lo, Hepi Hepi, the two sons of the Sky, mighty in splendour, grant ye that I may be master over the water, even as Set had dominion over his evil power on the day of the storming of the Two Lands."
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Last Login: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:09 PM
Posts: 10,
Visits: 10
|
|
I love how you accuse me of throwing up a straw man but then say that "evolutionists" uphold a basic religious believe that your gods don't exist. Apparently you've never heard of Francis Collins, for one thing. I may disagree with him vehemently, but at least he gets the reality-observing, scientific end of things right. Evolution has nothing to do with the supernatural. "Evolutionists" don't care what you have to say about your gods or your beliefs. The two never meet. One has nothing to do with the other. There is no "evolutionist" position on gods, you're just creating some ridiculous conspiracy so you can get angry and flail at reality.
And this historical-versus-testable nonsense is just another tired old argument from your side. Data collection is just as much a part of the scientific method as experimentation is. Historical evidence is simply data. If a piece of datum comes along to challenge or confirm a previously held theory, the scientific method is how that piece of datum is addressed. It's really quite simple. If we take the hypothesis that all life shares a common ancestry, we can gather data by examining as much life as we can, working back, looking for evidence to confirm or deny this hypothesis. As it stands, the vast, overwhelming majority of evidence has confirmed.
And nobody on your side has ever, not once, provided proof that evolution doesn't happen. The closest you people have gotten was Michael Behe's book, and all that did was introduce a sliver of reasonable doubt, a hole in the science, until Behe's god-of-the-gaps crap was actually tested against and, indeed, an evolutionary path for the clotting mechanism was conceived and exhibited. So don't you dare try to suggest that you've got some proof to toss around when all you're doing is waving around discredited, non-scientific research that had already been thoroughly abandoned by the scientific community in favor of better, more accurate explanations.
And here's what's really getting to me about your rambling, incoherent flood hypothesis: you believe in the biblical flood. You don't believe any of those other flood myths, you believe the one in your book with Noah (I was meaning to say Noah, not Moses) and the big boat and the animals. Your flood myth specifically states that the Hebrew god wiped out all other civilizations on earth. The other flood myths all feature survivors and storytellers, so how did they survive? Did your god just miss? Or is your book just a bunch of nonsense? I'll give you a hint: one of these explanations is much better than the other.
Also you might not be familiar with how basic physical science works. Even accounting for subterranean water, there's not enough to cover the entire planet because as you move out from the center of the earth it takes *gasp* geometrically more water to fill the space. Show me that there's enough water down there to flood at least to the degree of, I don't know, let's throw that bar real low, a few feet 1.3 x 10^8 km^2 of surface area (if the surface area of the earth, water included, is 5.1 x 10^8 km^2) then we'll talk. Until then, chew on this: without your myths, there would be no reason to ever even conceive of a flood that covered the entire world. This is the inherent problem with your beliefs. You don't form your ideas based on evidence. You have them already formed for you by a book that says that pi is 3 and that rabbits chew cud, so clearly it's not exactly on the up-and-up where science is concerned, and then you go out looking for evidence that confirms your nice, neat, hypocrisy-laden little conclusions.
|
|
|
|
