Another factor is that, with very few possible exceptions, none of those cultures were isolated from the others. Even if we ignore all the migrations that went on, trade routes ran all over the Old World and there's even evidence that suggests those trade routes included contact with the New World BCE (eg, apparent evidence of Phoenician artifacts in America, tobacco found in an Egyptian mummy). Other examples included Roman trade missions to China and ancient Greek statues in Heian-kyo (Japanese imperial capital c. 800 CE).
Trade and other cultural contacts involve the exchange of ideas, myths, and legends, which can be assimilated almost immediately, especially in an oral tradition. A modern example is the "isolated" tribe with a myth about Sirius and anthropologists were amazed that the myth included a small companion, which was the white dwarf Sirius B that had not only been discovered relatively recently but cannot be detected without a telescope. But when they consulted the notes of anthropologists from before the discovery of Sirius B the myth about Sirius had no companion. The conclusion was that they were not so hermetically isolated from the outside and that when news of Sirius B filtered in it got incorporated into the myth. Even though this story is very likely apocryphal, it does demonstrate the process.
Another example is the urban legend (definitely an oral tradition) about President Nixon going for a swim in the ocean at the Western White House and being saved from drowning by a boy who happened to be there. Nixon offered him whatever reward he wanted, but all the boy wanted was that his father not learn that he had saved Nixon for which his father would surely punish him. That one spans several decades and cultures, having also been told about Hitler, Stalin, FDR, etc.
When a culture first assimilates a new myth or legend, it changes it to fit into that culture. Then just a single generation or two later, everybody knows that that myth has been in the culture since forever. The Romantic Era in 19th Century Europe believed that folk tales had remained virtually unchanged within the culture for several centuries, whereas in reality they were only a few generations old.
The most likely scenario is that these stories had spread from one culture to another, changing and being assimilated each time. Judaic tradition which ended up being written down was just one of the recipients of the story of a god making the sun stand still. It is very unlikely that Judaic tradition was the origin of the story and there is no reason to assume it to be.
This is very weak and questionable "proof" for the truth of a specific form of Christianity. It is far too unreliable to be used seriously. Yet we continually see this same kind of "proof" being presented, which only serves to make the one relying on it appear foolish. As Dr. Allan Harvey (a practicing Christian) wrote in his essay on Thoughts on "Joshua's Long Day" (which I linked to in my first reply in this topic):
quote:Are these just harmless stories? I believe they are actually a significant problem for the church for a couple of reasons.
First, they contribute to the perception that Christianity is for stupid people. While there are bigger factors in that perception (notably the "creation science" movement), these stories make Christians look foolish. Of course the Bible tells us that our faith will look foolish to outsiders (1 Cor. 1:18-25), but it is the cross of Christ that the world is supposed to scoff at, not our own silliness on matters unrelated to the gospel [or "stupid and senseless controversies" (2 Tim. 2:23)].
If Christians seeking to support and promote their religion were to devote even a hundredth of the time and energy on valid attempts as they spend on foolish and false nonsense, they might actually be able to accomplish something.
The claim isn't that the Bible originated the story of the Flood, it's that it's the TRUE account of the Flood, all the others having been mythified. I don't know about the story of the sun standing still, stories about it in other cultures.
There are some stories that moved from culture to culture, such as the Mother and Child image in pagan religions that originated with the religion invented around Semiramus and Tammuz, that ultimately got incorporated into Roman Catholicism.
But all you really have as evidence for the transmission of the Flood stories by that means is speculation. You really don't know, you are guessing. They still really could be mythified memories carried separately within cultures. Not to say there couldn't have been some influence from culture to culture as well, but it remains quite possible that the stories represent a universal memory distorted over time. Nothing you or Rrhain has proved it's not.
And by the way, we don't need any such evidence, we know the truth because we know the Bible is God's revelation. And that being the case it makes sense that an actual event such as the Flood that is recorded there, might very well be remembered in some form throughout the world.
quote: The claim isn't that the Bible originated the story of the Flood, it's that it's the TRUE account of the Flood, all the others having been mythified.
The mere existence of similar myths and legends would not be good evidence for that even if it were established that they were independent. As should be very obvious that fact (if it were a fact) does nothing to establish the Biblical account as being any more true than any of the others.
quote: But all you really have as evidence for the transmission of the Flood stories by that means is speculation. You really don't know, you are guessing
Snorri Sturluson used the Bible story - and the Trojan war - in the introduction to his Edda. The various Middle Eastern stories are all related.
quote: They still really could be mythified memories carried separately within cultures
You do realise that relying on that "could be" reduces the value of the other myths as evidence quite significantly ?
But even if the stories were "mythified memories" they don't have to be "mythified memories" of the same event. Stories can and do grow and change in the telling. That is one reason why tracking down the origins of the stories is important.
Indeed, why would you want the stories to be independent? According to the Bible, the Flood did not leave scattered survivors - only one family survived and their descendants stayed together until Babel.
quote: And by the way, we don't need any such evidence, we know the truth because we know the Bible is God's revelation. And that being the case it makes sense that an actual event such as the Flood that is recorded there, might very well be remembered in some form throughout the world.
In reality we know the the Flood did not happen as the Bible described due to the physical evidence (or lack of it). The weak evidence of similar myths could never overwhelm that fact.
But all you really have as evidence for the transmission of the Flood stories by that means is speculation. You really don't know, you are guessing.
Actual bumper sticker I once saw:
quote:Militant Agnostic: I don't know AND NEITHER DO YOU!
All you really have as evidence for the transmission of the Flood stories as you wish to imagine it is speculation. You really don't know, you are guessing.
The difference is that the transmission of myths and legends from one culture to another and from one generation to another within a culture has been studied for a few centuries, so we do know fairly well how that works. What I presented is much closer to what we know about such things. Your idea "that the stories represent a universal memory distorted over time" is much closer to the naïve ideas from Romantic Era nationalism which were shown long ago to be foolish. But at least out of that 19th century daydream came Grimm's Fairy Tales, which were folk tales collected by two linguists, the Brothers Grimm, who collected them as part of their linguistical research (Grimm's Law detailing with consonant changes is very important in German linguistics).
The point is that this kind of "evidence" supporting the Bible is very weak and not very useful, yet so many fundamentalists keep presenting it as conclusive proof (eg, young earth creationists still make much out of the existence of flood stories in other cultures). The point I was making is that their time and effort would be much better spent with far better results is they were to seek actual valid evidence instead of resorting to nonsense which only serves to discredit them and their religion.
However there is overwhelming evidence that there has never been a world wide flood during the time humans existed on this earth which is also overwhelming evidence that all the flood stories including the two different and mutually exclusive flood stories found in the Bible are also simply myths.
quote: Jesus worked countless miracles in front of countless people, and many of them still didn't believe Him. They believed He was a sorcerer.
Or so it is said. Claims of miracles are not uncommon. Claims that stand up to examination - when that is possible - are much, much rarer.
quote: Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould clearly stated that there are no transitional fossils.
He certainly did not. If you had done your research properly you ought to know that.
quote: Fred Hoyle is the author of this famous quote
Hoyle had some very strange ideas.
quote: Human freedom reigns supreme, it cannot be forced in any way. When man cannot find the arguments he is looking for, he manufactures them himself.
Christian apologists certainly do. However it is usually quite obvious.
quote: If the moon were to break apart into a million pieces, and the pieces were arranged in the sky to form a text reading "THERE IS A GOD!", would atheists be convinced? Probably not, probably they'll say there is a scientific explanation for that, too, maybe an advanced alien civilization making fun of us...
Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould clearly stated that there are no transitional fossils. Still, he was not a creationist. He believed evolution happened only at certain moments, and so fast, that it left no traces in the fossil record (punctuated equilibrium).
Creationists have quoted mined Gould since the flood. So I'm calling you on this. Please produce the evidence to support your claim and I'll then show you how creationists have deliberately distorted it.
Gould was a prominent evolutionary biologist who campaigned AGAINST creationism.
Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould clearly stated that there are no transitional fossils.
This is not true. In fact he clearly stated that transitional fossils are abundant and that creationists who misrepresent him on this point are either morons or liars: "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
If you have to tell obvious and childish lies to support your position, doesn't that indicate that your position is completely wrong?
quote: Anyway, I don't want to argue now about what is the right way to interpret Gould's words. If there are transitional fossils, where are they hidden?
They aren't hidden, most of them are in museum collections - many are kept for researchers to study but some are on display. I've seen an archaeopteryx fossil, for instance. And Gould called that an extremely good example of a transitional.
quote: Pictures of REAL fossils that show a REAL and SMOOTH transition...
And here we have the weasel-wording of someone trying to dismiss the evidence. Funny how you manage to fall into exactly the trap you spoke of, and in a way that is quite obvious to someone who knows the Gould quote. Transitions do not have to be smooth, nor are they expected to be. Gould considered Archaeopteryx a good example of a transitional fossil because it did not fit with a smooth transition.
Here's a quote from Colin Patterson, an evolutionist, (former) senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History:
Would that be the same Colin Patterson who outside of the fantasy world in your head wrote "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate fishes ..." (Colin Patterson, "Evolution" 1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.)
Anyway, I don't want to argue now about what is the right way to interpret Gould's words.
Yeah, that is indeed a discussion that you would be well-advised to run away from as fast as your little legs will carry you.
If there are transitional fossils, where are they hidden?
They're not hidden. All the dumb lies of creationists have not succeeded in hiding them.