Atheism

[Djevv]

Yes,but they seemed to have been able to accept that it's mythological.It's only modern christians(it seems) who literally believe thing like this are true rather than allegorical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28mythology%29

Heres the Aboriginal one...

Australia
According to the Australian aborigines, in the Dreamtime a huge frog drank all the water in the world and a drought swept across the land. The only way to finish the drought was to make the frog laugh. Animals from all over Australia gathered together and one by one attempted to make the frog laugh. When finally eel succeeded, the frog opened his sleepy eyes, his big body quivered, his face relaxed, and, at last, he burst into a laugh that sounded like rolling thunder. The water poured from his mouth in a flood. It filled the deepest rivers and covered the land. Only the highest mountain peaks were visible, like islands in the sea. Many men and animals were drowned. The pelican who was blackfellow at that time painted himself with white clay and went from island to island in a great canoe, rescuing other blackfellows. Since that time pelicans have been black and white in remembrance of the Great Flood[12].



It's literally true i tells ya!!!!!!!!!!!

So, I take it that you believe that mythological tales such as the Illiad and the Odessey, Jason and the Golden Fleece and Arthur and his knights have absolutely no basis in fact and were made up by the authors.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

How often will you question my qualifications? How often my understanding of my area of expertise? Indeed, someone questioned my competence in my job? I'm not upset, gives me a good laugh, but I'm not sure what it adds to the discussion.

You continue to harp on about how I have made personal attacks of you. You may interpret my replies in that way, but you haven't shown me where I have questioned your qualifications (because I haven't). I have questioned your understanding, but only in response to something that you have said that is clearly contrary to the scientific method or, in your case, geological science. Considering some of the responses you have provided and the fact that you are a science teacher does ring some alarm bells. Do you teach your students that creationist 'science' is a legitimate branch of science. You clearly believe that it is. Do you teach them evolutionary biology and the current consensus of the scientific community on the matter? From your responses on here, I would say you would struggle to do so.

You start accusing people of personal attacks, yet I am yet to see where I have responded via a personal attack and haven't addressed the issue you have raised. Before you continue to make accusations, please provide evidence of this, in context.

Yes uniformatarianism is a resonable assumption, but it is an assumption nevertheless. I gave numerous evidences of catastrophism in previous pages. I also explained how creationism explained the whys and hows of fossil distribution.

I must have missed the information on how creationism explains fossil distribution. Going back, I still can't find it.

What evidence have you got that the things written of in the Bible are myths?

What evidence do you have that they are not? The onus is on you in this case. Some biblical stories have obviously revolved around historically true events, that does not make everything in the books true.

It makes a falsifiable hypothesis of a world-wide flood. Surely all scientific models make falsifiable hypothesis, certainly the hydoplate theory does

A hypothesis that is not borne out by the available geological and biological evidence (if all terrestrial animals/plants on this planet descended from a small founding population this would be clear as day in the genetics of their population).

The hydroplate theory has huge flaws that would need to be rectified (I personally can't see how) if it was to be accepted as a plausible theory.

Every theory has it's difficulties - more research is required. What changing tactics do you refer to?

So what is being tested? What is this research?

The changing tactics involved what you pointed out as the 30 year old modern creationist stance. Creationists have had to move away from a literal interpretation of the bible in an attempt to make their beliefs appear legitimate given our current understanding of the natural universe. That is not to say that you can't hold personal religious beliefs that accord with our current understanding, but that is not what we are talking about here.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Interesting quote here from the POV of people making a priori assumptions:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Interesting quote. However, that is science. It investigates the natural world. Any supernatural forces are exempt from explanation from science. However anything that occurs in this universe is natural and thus amenable to scientific enquiry.

The existence of a supernatural creator (at least the one that you and Jay subscribe to) would leave evidence. Things like 'imperfect design' are powerful arguments against such a creator.

 

[evo]

So, I take it that you believe that mythological tales such as the Illiad and the Odessey, Jason and the Golden Fleece and Arthur and his knights have absolutely no basis in fact and were made up by the authors.

I'm sure all those epics are loosely based around facts.

I also imagine there probably was a localised serious flood at some stage in the middle east.But to extrapolate that out to world floods,waters rising from caverns below,cue-ball flat earths a mere 4 or 5000 years ago(from a trained geologist no less),all animals currently on the earth tracing their heritage back to the contents of one boat and all the other gymnastics you've been performing in this thread is outrageous.

I mean that in the nicest possible way. ;D

 

[Djevv]

I'm sure all those epics are loosely based around facts.

I also imagine there probably was a localised serious flood at some stage in the middle east.But to extrapolate that out to world floods,waters rising from caverns below,cue-ball flat earths a mere 4 or 5000 years ago(from a trained geologist no less),all animals currently on the earth tracing their heritage back to the contents of one boat and all the other gymnastics you've been performing in this thread is outrageous.

I mean that in the nicest possible way. ;D

Perhaps, but you continue to mis-represent what I say in ways that seem dishonest.

I have at least offered evidence

All sedimentry layers are formed underwater - the ones you and are standing on. Uniformatarians would say these occurred due to localised inundations. Often then catasrophic circumstances (localised) are invoked to deposit the large thicknesses of sediment. Hence there is no geological reason why ALL the sediments around the world could not be explained as having been layed down quickly. Faulting, folding etc happened later.

The water came from beneath the ground. This is the explanation for the origin of the oceans - why not a little more quickly for a flood? There is still significant water underground. Water underground is the reason invoked for all sorts of volcanic features as well as many mineral deposits. The rain is more difficult but may have had a variety of causes depending upon which model you favor.

Where did the water go? It is still with us in the oceans! Tectonic upheavals at the end of the flood caused the ocean floors to sink (yes there are models for this) and possibly the continents to move. The waters then receeded from the land and into the new ocean basins.

You need to take off those uniformitarian blinkers and think outside the square a bit!

 

[Djevv]

The supernatural god for a supernatural phenomenon explanation doesn't really cut it. You may as well wheel that one out for every phenomenon!

If the water in the ocean fell on the land....it would run back to the ocean, not flood the entire earth!

The 'hydroplate' explanation of the flood would have to get around a few problems:

* that the rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float, so that the water would have been forced to the surface long before the Genesis flood.
* that even two miles deep (far above the hypothesised depth), the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), resulting in a superheated reservoir of water and temperatures that would not have been survivable.
* that the waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures through which they were escaping, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

(source: Wikipedia)

Answers to these critisisms

The rocks that make up the earth's crust do not float

The rocks were not floating on the subterranean water like a boat; rather the water was in a sealed chamber. Water or even air in a sealed chamber will support a large amount of weight, that would other wise sink through it. It would be more like a water bed than a boat. Furthermore, Brown was clear that "About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth’s surface."

At a depth of 10 miles the temperature would be to high

Being at 10 miles the temperature would be so high that when released the water would have fried the Earth. This assumes current conditions, on the pre Flood world. It is likely that the current levels of heat inside the Earth were generated by the events of the Flood; furthermore the vaporization that would occur during the eruption due to decompression would have cooled it as well; hence the water would not have been too hot.

The eroding of the sides of the fissures

The eroding of the sides of the fissures, by the escaping water would have producing poorly sorted basaltic deposits, that have never been seen. There is no basis for this claim. The following factors show that it is erroneous:

The subterranean water would have eroded mainly granite not basalt.
The force behind the eruption would pulverize what was eroded so the particles of such deposits, would be removed and resorted by the Flood waters.

(source: Creationwiki)

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It is likely that the current levels of heat inside the Earth were generated by the events of the Flood;

How is this likely?

I am still waiting to see how you explain the patterns of genetic diversity amongst the flora and fauna on this planet. A huge genetic bottleneck, like the one mentioned in the flood, would show up clearly in the DNA of all flora and fauna.

Why is this not the case if your hypothesis is correct?

 

[Six Pack]

Did Noah gather all the marsupials? How did he house the platypus?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

You need to take off those uniformitarian blinkers and think outside the square a bit!

I assume you are using the term uniformitarian in the sense of modern uniformitarianism? Modern science does acknowledge the role of certain catastrophes in the history of this planet and their role in shaping it geology. It also recognises the importance of gradual processes, such as the erosion caused by glaciers.

I just wanted to make it clear that this isn't an us vs. them thing in geology...tenets of catastrophism (which was devised by geologists to try to explain young earth) and gradualism are found in the current view of the earth's geology.

I don't recall your view on the age of the Earth Djevv. Do you subscribe to catastrophism as an explanation as it is conducive to a 'young' Earth viewpoint?

 

[Djevv]

Jay,

I thought this passage might interest you it actually talks about the creation-evolution debate, some 2000 years before it happened:

2 Peter 3:

3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

There is also some interesting points there about Geology (the Earth was formed in and by water) and the that the Earth was both deluged AND destroyed which means to me that the sediments resulting from that flood have the old earth contained, destroyed, in them (fossils and fossil fuels).

 

[Djevv]

How is this likely?

The catastrophic collapse to form oceanic basins certainly would have generated heat. Nobody really knows the source of the Earth's heat, it is presumed to be radioactivity.

I am still waiting to see how you explain the patterns of genetic diversity amongst the flora and fauna on this planet. A huge genetic bottleneck, like the one mentioned in the flood, would show up clearly in the DNA of all flora and fauna.

Why is this not the case if your hypothesis is correct?

Would you care to elaborate? I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The catastrophic collapse to form oceanic basins certainly would have generated heat. Nobody really knows the source of the Earth's heat, it is presumed to be radioactivity.

There are a number of theories on Earth's hot core:

(1) heat from when the planet formed and accreted, which has not yet been lost;
(2) frictional heating, caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet;
and
(3) heat from the decay of radioactive elements.
(Source: Scientific American)

Would you care to elaborate? I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter.

If all but a single reproducing pair were killed by the flood then the genetic diversity of all life on this planet would have been 'bottlenecked' into those original pairs (or small populations if there were more than a pair of each). For instance, all humans would have descended from Noah and co a few thousand years ago. Yet, analysis of human DNA and the rate at which it mutates (changes) gives us rough estimates of how long humans have been evolving as a separate species for. This analysis can be done on any species. If the flood were true this analysis would reveal a common 'bottleneck' event for all species a few thousand years ago. This is not the case. In fact many species have very diverse gene pools that demonstrate a much more ancient population.

This data on its own makes a re-examination of the flood hypothesis essential.

 

[Six Pack]

How did he handle all the deadly snakes and spiders?

 

[Tiger74]

How did he handle all the deadly snakes and spiders?

He got his brother Roberto to handle them. There is a reason Roberto isn't mentioned in the Bible :hihi

 

[jayfox]

Try thinking about the motives of the authors. Their claims can't be falsified because of the sorts of 'prophecies' built in to the text. You see that as the fulfilment of prophecy, I see it far more likely as the sort of thing that immunises the tenets of the religion from self-criticism.

You always sprout on about my ignorance of research surrounding evolution, well I think that this shows your ignorance regarding Biblical prophecy. Did you know that almost a third of the content of the Bible is dedicated to prophecy? There were over 100 prophecies regarding the first coming of Jesus and there are 5 times that many prophecies concerning His second coming. There are also many prophecies regarding the state the world will be in when He returns and most, if not all, of those prophecies have been fulfilled within our lifetime.

If you actually study these prophecies in depth and in the context that they were intended, they are actually very easy to understand and find clear meaning from. But you have to do the study and not just take a particular verse out of it's context.

If you are willing to suspend rational thought for the sake of your religious beliefs, that is your choice.

Remember that conversation we were having about you being arrogant and belittling..........

You are actually instructed to do so by your holy books. What other choice did they have? It is the self-reinforcing nature of religion. No questions...faith is the absolute virtue.

This is not true at all. There are many stories in the Bible of people who have questioned their faith only to have it renewed. Go and read the stories of Job or Jonah, for example.

There is no instruction in the Bible not to ask questions or question things. In fact you need to do this to strengthen your faith. If someone has doubts but refuses to ask the questions and seek answers to these doubts then it would actually have a negative impact on their faith.
Matthew 7:7 - "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."

Most plants would not survive extended submersion in water, saline or not. Again, where did all of this water go?

Again, I don't have all of the answers on this but as for where the water went, I think Djevv mentioned recently that the Earth's landscape may have been a lot different prior to the flood, i.e. a lot flatter, and therefore it wouldn't have taken as much water to cover the land. Who knows what kind of devastation occurred with the release of the "fountains of the great deep"? It may have taken huge Earthquakes to move the Earth enough to release this water, the result of which, and the enormous impact of such a sudden rush of a huge quantity of water, along with possible volcanic disruption, could have dramatically changed the landscape? This is all pure speculation but I think that we don't truly know what affect such a catastrophy could have on the Earth and what all of the results would be? Can you tell me, assuming just for a second that it did happen, what the affect on the Earth would be of a worldwide 40 day flood?

 

[jayfox]

Pantera, I haven't seen an answer on these questions I asked you a few pages back (sorry if I missed them) -


You say "species don't evolve into other species" but we ALL started from the same source according to evolution, bacteria, so for us to have evolved into thousands of different creatures then some species would have had to have evolved into other species wouldn't it?

And referring to chimps - "I'd love to know what differences there are in them now compared to 5 million years ago, in any or all of the ways you have brought up?"


Thanks

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

You always sprout on about my ignorance of research surrounding evolution, well I think that this shows your ignorance regarding Biblical prophecy. Did you know that almost a third of the content of the Bible is dedicated to prophecy? There were over 100 prophecies regarding the first coming of Jesus and there are 5 times that many prophecies concerning His second coming. There are also many prophecies regarding the state the world will be in when He returns and most, if not all, of those prophecies have been fulfilled within our lifetime.

If you actually study these prophecies in depth and in the context that they were intended, they are actually very easy to understand and find clear meaning from. But you have to do the study and not just take a particular verse out of it's context.

I am well aware of the Bible and its prophecies. I have read it and studied it.

If you don't think that there is a wiggle room in the prophecies made, nor recognise that many of the events of the New Testament were written to fulfill OT prophecy, then we require different levels of evidence to be convinced. I am also aware of the end of times prophecies and, like astrology, I feel that we apply many of these prophecies to our own situation. If you look at the prophecies they are certainly open to a large amount of interpretation. Why are there no clear prophecies, that couldn't have been make 2000 years ago? If you really want to convince me, show me a passage in the bible that predicts something that the authors could have had no prior knowledge of. If the book was divinely inspired, then there shouldn't be a problem with this.

Remember that conversation we were having about you being arrogant and belittling..........

To believe something despite hard evidence to the contrary is, by definition, irrational. We all do irrational things. It is how we view this irrational behaviour that differentiates us. I see it as irrational, you don't.

The onus is on you to justify your position and how you rationally hold your position. If you aren't able to do that then your actions may be labeled 'irrational'. It is not an arrogant, nor belittling position, that is just the way it is.

This is not true at all. There are many stories in the Bible of people who have questioned their faith only to have it renewed. Go and read the stories of Job or Jonah, for example.

Job didn't question his faith...he was tested and found 'worthy' for the reason that he maintained his faith, despite the trials his compassionate (!?!) god gave him.

The point I am making is that you must maintain your faith, even if it seems irrational. That is an important cornerstone of your faith and something that is hammered home time and time again. That first and foremost comes your faith in God and everything is to be interpreted in light of that faith-based belief. Yet, the core belief itself, ie. in God, is only based on that feeling that you know it to be true. Unfortunately, the human psyche is not infallible in this area, which is why science only believes things which have ample, corroborating evidence.

I have asked you before, but how would you be able to tell the difference between this feeling and a delusion that made you feel this way?

There is no instruction in the Bible not to ask questions or question things. In fact you need to do this to strengthen your faith. If someone has doubts but refuses to ask the questions and seek answers to these doubts then it would actually have a negative impact on their faith.
Matthew 7:7 - "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."

What if contrary evidence is discovered? Clearly it is the evidence that is at fault, not the faith-based belief.

Again, I don't have all of the answers on this but as for where the water went, I think Djevv mentioned recently that the Earth's landscape may have been a lot different prior to the flood, i.e. a lot flatter, and therefore it wouldn't have taken as much water to cover the land. Who knows what kind of devastation occurred with the release of the "fountains of the great deep"? It may have taken huge Earthquakes to move the Earth enough to release this water, the result of which, and the enormous impact of such a sudden rush of a huge quantity of water, along with possible volcanic disruption, could have dramatically changed the landscape? This is all pure speculation but I think that we don't truly know what affect such a catastrophy could have on the Earth and what all of the results would be? Can you tell me, assuming just for a second that it did happen, what the affect on the Earth would be of a worldwide 40 day flood?

All of this would be evident in the geological and biological data. It is not. The story is plainly false.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Pantera, I haven't seen an answer on these questions I asked you a few pages back (sorry if I missed them) -

You say "species don't evolve into other species" but we ALL started from the same source according to evolution, bacteria, so for us to have evolved into thousands of different creatures then some species would have had to have evolved into other species wouldn't it?

That quote was a response to the 'if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes' type question that you raised. Of course speciation occurs and over time species diverge (and in some cases converge by selection) over time. I described how speciation works a little earlier. Evolution works on populations and if a sub-population becomes reproductively isolated it will diverge through differing selection pressures and on the random mutations of genes and the traits they confer (ie genetic drift). Both species then exist and have their own fates (ie extinction, expansion etc.).

Just FYI, modern evolutionary theory does not postulate that we evolved from bacteria; bacteria, eukaryotes (including us) and the archaea (another branch of life distinct from bacteria and eukaryotes) evolved from a common ancestor (sometimes referred to as LUCA. Some of the current hypotheses suggest that LUCA may have been multiple organisms with a much more 'fluid' genetic makeup (ie they swapped genes back and forth much more freely than us modern DNA-based organisms). This is based on the behaviour of modern cells, the RNA-based machinery that still functions in modern cells --> the more we find out about cells the more apparent this is becoming.

And referring to chimps - "I'd love to know what differences there are in them now compared to 5 million years ago, in any or all of the ways you have brought up?"

Our knowledge of the last common ancestor between humans and the great apes is based on fossil evidence. The last common ancestor to both species is probably the prehistoric great ape Nakalipithecus nakayamai or Ouranopithecus macedoniensis. As to differences, that is a good question. The ancestor was clearly a primate, but what has changed in the two lineages over the last 5-7 million years? Publication of the chimpanzee genome a couple of years ago, the investigation of chimpanzee fossils (which there is very little published on) and the subsequent analysis fo the differences between the two species will start to shed more light on this in the coming years.

BTW, there is some discussion of including the chimpanzee and bonobo into the genus Homo instead of their current position in the genus Pan. The differences between chimps and humans are less than that used to co-classify other species into the same genus.

 

[jayfox]

I am well aware of the Bible and its prophecies. I have read it and studied it.

If you don't think that there is a wiggle room in the prophecies made, nor recognise that many of the events of the New Testament were written to fulfill OT prophecy, then we require different levels of evidence to be convinced. I am also aware of the end of times prophecies and, like astrology, I feel that we apply many of these prophecies to our own situation. If you look at the prophecies they are certainly open to a large amount of interpretation. Why are there no clear prophecies, that couldn't have been make 2000 years ago? If you really want to convince me, show me a passage in the bible that predicts something that the authors could have had no prior knowledge of. If the book was divinely inspired, then there shouldn't be a problem with this.

This is where we differ. I believe that if you study the prophetic scriptures closely and take into account the context, traditions, and symbolisms of the day then they are easy to understand. The re-unification of Israel as a nation is one prophecy that the authors couldn't have had any prior knowledge of. And that's just one, there's plenty of them regarding increases in the pace of live, in travel, in the more prominent role of women and children (not elders) in the church etc.

Job didn't question his faith...he was tested and found 'worthy' for the reason that he maintained his faith, despite the trials his compassionate (!?!) god gave him.

Job questioned God many times during his ordeal with God. He constantly asked God why he was being made to suffer. In the latter chapters Job had just about given up. He began to question God's integrity and love for him. It is actually an intriguing mental, physical and spiritual battle between good and evil, man and God.

The point I am making is that you must maintain your faith, even if it seems irrational. That is an important cornerstone of your faith and something that is hammered home time and time again. That first and foremost comes your faith in God and everything is to be interpreted in light of that faith-based belief. Yet, the core belief itself, ie. in God, is only based on that feeling that you know it to be true. Unfortunately, the human psyche is not infallible in this area, which is why science only believes things which have ample, corroborating evidence.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning things that you do not understand about your faith. A healthy skepticism is good for determining what is true.

I have asked you before, but how would you be able to tell the difference between this feeling and a delusion that made you feel this way?

I'm not sure what you mean? Are you saying that all Christians are delusional and that we don't experience God in our daily lives?

 

[Disco08]

Only one religion (if any) can be right, so all members of the religions that have it wrong are deluding themselves, aren't they?