quote:That 'logic' just doesn't make sense. You are essentially saying that because the legend exists, it must be true.
No, that is not what I am saying. Instead I pointed out, if the legend exists of a global flood, the first logic is it was not a global flood. Check the implications: how long would it take to rebuild the earth and humanity if a global flood occured - how would the legend people ratify such a premise without wondering how they are still around?
quote:
Why is it more logical to you that the solution is a global flood and not catastrophic regional flood(s) giving rise to these stories? Or (banish the thought!) possibly just fiction?
Good question. If you check the references one will see these are later Greek responses of the Hebrew writings, being post 300 BCE/Septuagint translation, complete with head bashing legends of deitites - affirming only its total distance from the Hebrew writings. They are probably the source of these legends, which later became embedded in the views of Christianity. It has nothing to do with the Hebrew texts: Europe also ratifies a trinity and divine man as representing the Hebrew version of Monotheism and translating Isaiah to represent the very antithesis of Isaiah, and other such legends. Intelligent, honest retrospection must prevail here, but this appears not possible because of the Greek/Roman based agenda of Europe and the so-called science based atheists! This applies:
Its the text, stupid. The Hebrew writings are humanity's most credible ancient writings humanity possesses.
The Hebrew writings are humanity's most credible ancient writings humanity possesses.
That statement is pretty epic. For one thing, how do you address the older Mesopotamian texts which seem to provide a 'source' for the Hebrew texts?
Frankly, the statement is astounding. There are civilizations that have written records from before the time that the Hebrews were even literate (Sumerians, Egyptians, etc) How can these relative newcomers on the ancient scene provide the most credible writings? On what basis can you possibly make that claim?
Sure, the writings have plenty in them that are verifiable (places, certain names, etc), however so do the records of Egypt, for example.
And speaking of that, those records provide evidence of Egyptian writing going way back beyond 3,000 BC -- how could you possibly make that jive with a flood that would have interrupted and wiped out that very civilization, a flood which did not apparently interrupt the cultural development or archaeological record of *any* of the peoples studied across northern Africa, Southwest Asia, or Europe?
We should see obvious signs of migration starting in an epicenter around the mountains of Ararat starting sometime around 4,500 years ago. We see no such evidence; it should be blindingly obvious to archaeologists. Instead, what we have is a consistent pattern of settlement and development. The only way you can make that case is if you dismiss out of hand *all* established methods of dating, and only accept the biblical account and timing based upon a modern, literal reading of *one text*.
Its the text, stupid. The Hebrew writings are humanity's most credible ancient writings humanity possesses.
As I clearly described in other messages and in a PM, you are exhausting the patience of moderators by insisting on discussing the Bible in science threads. The science threads are about evidence. I have no other choice but to do what I said I would do if you continued to discuss the Bible in science threads, which is to suspend you for one week.
...so perhaps we could narrow the focus. What do you feel is the most significant evidence for a global flood four or five thousand years ago?
Hello Percy, good to be chatting with you again. Actually I'm quite fond of all the evidences I mentioned. I feel that just as a preponderance of the evidence in a court room assists in swaying the scales of blind justice one way or another, likewise I think they are all very relevant to the discussion. I do like Panda's approach though and think it will simplify things to discuss each, one at a time.
Brad: The typical local flood events just don't produce these kinds of features.
Panda: I see no evidence to support this conclusion. If you could provide some evidence to back up these claims I would be very interested.-
Your asking me to provide evidence for something that does "not" occur? This would be similar to me expecting someone to provide evidence to support the claim that God does not exist. A negative statement cannot be proven, it can only be dis-proven. That means if you know of just one example that shows how normal flood conditions (not catastrophic events like a 4 or above VEI volcano) could produce fossilized surface ripples, then I'd love to here it.
The age of folk or how long they lived is totally irrelevant to the genetic marker. It does not matter how long folk lived although there is absolute proof that all the animals lived just about as long as they do today going back way before Adam's time.
Really? I didn't know they could tell by looking at a fossilized bone exactly how old something was when it died. Or maybe you are implying that they could look at a sample of my DNA and genetically tell how old all my great great great grandparents were? Seriously though, I'd like to see the research work that demonstrates this "absolute proof." If you would kindly link us to something?
Your nonsense would simply make the genetic marker even more obvious. The fact is, the marker is not seen.
I am not doubting that it is "not seen," I am doubting that it is possible to see. I am doubting that you can "genetically" tell how old a species is or has existed. The most you can do is try and extrapolate figures from population growth backwards to a possible bottleneck, but then the figures become extremely off when you consider the fact that you can not count generations of a species in a simple linear fashion.
Actually I'm quite fond of all the evidences I mentioned. I feel that just as a preponderance of the evidence in a court room assists in swaying the scales of blind justice one way or another, likewise I think they are all very relevant to the discussion. I do like Panda's approach though and think it will simplify things to discuss each, one at a time.
That's fair and I agree with you about the preponderance of evidence. And please understand - nobody is asking you to leave your best evidence off the table or enjoin yourself from bringing up this or that evidence.
We find that discussions proceed on a more productive basis when narrowly focused. Percy is simply asking you to put forth your best piece of evidence for consideration so that you can be assured that it will be considered and discussed. If instead you drop a whole wheelbarrow of different evidence and different kinds of evidence on the table, things are going to be overlooked.
Over on our side of the table, we'd like not to be accused of ignoring the best evidence for the Noaic flood in order to attack the weakest. That's why Percy is asking you to put forth your best single piece of evidence. We're happy to address all the rest of your evidence as well, but in order to make sure that each piece gets the attention it deserves, why not proceed one at a time? Surely that's not unreasonable? We promise - we'll consider your evidence within the context of the preponderance you believe exists.
Your asking me to provide evidence for something that does "not" occur? This would be similar to me expecting someone to provide evidence to support the claim that God does not exist. A negative statement cannot be proven, it can only be dis-proven.
A negative statement can be proven. If I asked you to prove that a cat does not go "woof" every time you hit it - it would only require 1 cat and a stick to prove that negative statement true.
You have claimed that localised flooding doesn't create ripples. How do you know? What research has been done to show this is true?
JBR writes:
That means if you know of just one example that shows how normal flood conditions (not catastrophic events like a 4 or above VEI volcano) could produce fossilized surface ripples, then I'd love to here it.
They are your claims. This is meant to be your evidence. You need to substantiate your claims. If all you are doing is saying that you have a hypothesis that localised flooding doesn't cause ripples, then fine. But a hypothesis in not evidence.
p.s. If you accept that volcanoes create ripples - how do you know which ripples are caused by a global flood and which are caused by volcanoes?
{abe} After Percy's comments about focussing on your strongest evidence first: I am happy to abandon this line of discussion and switch to another if that is what you would prefer.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
A negative statement can be proven. If I asked you to prove that a cat does not go "woof" every time you hit it - it would only require 1 cat and a stick to prove that negative statement true.
That only proves that this one cat did not go "woof" - not that there isn't A cat that would, so no you don't have a proof.
Amusingly, there's also this to consider:
Watch the mouth when the cat turns around.
This of course could be faked, but how could you know?
A negative statement can be proven.
Some very specific negative statements can be proven, general broad statements are much more difficult:
"There is no milk in this bowl at the time I am looking at today" VS "there is no milk in any bowl"
As the second is false it would be very difficult to prove true.
It would be better to show that this specific negative could be proven than to just make critical statements.
That means if you know of just one example that shows how normal flood conditions (not catastrophic events like a 4 or above VEI volcano) could produce fossilized surface ripples, then I'd love to here it.
You don't even need "flood conditions" to produce ripples.
Here's some fossilized tidal ripples:
And here's some unfossilized tidal ripples:
Here's some fossilized ladder ripples:
And here's some unfossilized ladder ripples (I can't hotlink this image, you'll have to click on my link.)
Here's some fossilized interference ripples:
And here's some unfossilized interference ripples:
RE- A negative statement can be proven. If I asked you to prove that a cat does not go "woof" every time you hit it - it would only require 1 cat and a stick to prove that negative statement true. -
"Silly rabbit... Trix are for kids." You just proved my point. If the requirement is just to prove that that one particular cat does not go woof when struck, then one strike only proves that it didn't go woof that one time. I would have to have been present all of its entire life, for every second of its life prior to the experiment, and then have to beat it to death to prove it never went woof.
If the requirement is to prove that no cats go "woof" when you hit them, then hitting one cat would only prove that that one cat does not go woof (provided that he didn't of course). I would have to be present for every second of every cats life prior, and I would need to strike every cat in the entire universe until they were all dead before we could conclusively prove that cats do not go woof when you hit them. Which of course would be impossible for me to do. However all it would take is one cat going woof, one time when I hit it, to prove the negative statement was false.
RE-You have claimed that localised flooding doesn't create ripples. How do you know? What research has been done to show this is true?-
My statement in post 152 started with "My understanding is..." thereby implying that to the best of my knowledge it was true. Not that I had knowledge of the fossils left by every single flood that ever occurred in the entire universe. I know when I make a negative statement that I am only basing it on my own limited knowledge, and all it takes is one example otherwise by someone to disprove it.
RE-If you accept that volcanoes create ripples - how do you know which ripples are caused by a global flood and which are caused by volcanoes?.-
I am not even aware if volcanoes create ripple surface fossils or not. I am however aware that a volcano the size of Mt St. Helen or larger can at least create flood conditions which in turn created the exact same kinds of strata layering found world wide which (had it not been observed occurring quickly) would have been interpreted by uniformitarians as millions of years worth of strata. In fact, with most of the layers having already turned to stone, core samples were even sent to uniformitarian geologists to analyze without telling them where they came from, and that was precisely how they interpreted them.
The point with my "volcano" comment is that VEI 4 volcano's are not common enough to account for the vast surface ripple fossils found world wide. And if common local floods can not be shown to produce them, then a good hypothesis is that they are the result of one world wide catastrophic event.
™ Version 4.2
