To comment on Cooper I've come across people trying to argue for one of his claims - specifically the claim that the Germanic people included Noah and his sons in their pagan myths. WHen I reported the following there was no real response.
THe essential problem is that the only sources are Christian - and when I checked out the most easily available source (Snorri Sturluson's Edda) I found that Cooper had neglected to mention that it contradicted his claim.
According to Cooper the Germanic Seskef is the Biblical Japeth - and some sources do indeed make Seskef's father Noah. The Edda not only does not claim this (as Cooper implicitly admits) - it explicitly contradicts it.
Sturluson was an Icelander living after Christianity had becoem the dominant religion. Among other things he tried to preserve the stories of the pre-Christian times. If there was a genuine pagan tradition making Noah Seskef's father there is no reason why Sturluson should not mention it (if anything he should be expected to mention it as a validation of the old tales).
The Flood is explicitly mentioned - Sturluson was living in a Christian society - but following that Sturluson moves on. I have omitted parts that are not directly relevant but you can read hte link and see that nothing of importance has been left out.
Near the centre of the world where what we call Turkey lies, was built the most famous of all palaces and halls - Troy by name... ...There were twelve kingdoms with one over-king, and each kingdom contained many peoples......One of the kings was called Múnón or Mennón. He married a daughter of the chief king Priam who was called Tróáin, and they had a son named Trór - we call him Thór......In the northern part of the world he met with and married a prophetess called Sibyl whom we call Sif ......Lóriði, who resembled his father, was their son. Lóriði's son was Einridi, his son Vingethór, his son Vingener, his son Módi, his son Magi, his son Seskef, his son Beðvig, his son Athra, whom we call Annar..."
Thus according to the Edda a long time after the Flood when the human population had greatly recovered we have the kingdom of Troy (ruling over "many peoples"). And from there we have eight generations of ancestors for Seskef (Munon, Tror, Loridi, Einridi, Vingethor, Vingener, Modi and Magi). And Cooper mentions none of this.
If Cooper can't be trusted to accurately represent an easily obtainable source then how can anything he says be considered reliable ?
Does the intelligence of your comment reflect the intelligence of you? This really doesn’t seem like the thread to debate evolution as fact or fiction, beyond that…TAKE A LOOK AROUND! Read, learn, understand, we don’t embrace evolution because we want to deny creationism; we embrace it because that is the best explanation. Now…if I just clicked on the reply button to flame I would be a bad person…so…the book “The Blind Watchmaker” is in direct opposition to many current ID ideas. Brad
Guido, Shadow does have a point. One thing that is a paradox that I have learned here at EvC is that even though I perceive that Christian believers make more sense than atheistic theorists, it is usually a better and more logical argument that originates from the rational and scientific side than the stuff that the creationists attempt to come up with.
I am a believer in creation to a point. 1) God started it. a) Don't ask where He came from. He is your Daddy! b) The reason that humans even ask is because we are infected with the "ye shall be as gods" virus. We have to know everything!
Beyond that, much of evolutionary theory is good schoolwork and useful for science.
Ok, let's review my question which you answered so we don't lose focus.
Out of curiosity, which parts (of evolution) are not useful science in your opinion?
You then gave the following list:
quote:1. Evolution 2. The big bang theory 3. Stupid ghost crap after death theory
I then replied, asking you to explain how popularion genetics wasn't useful to science, how the Big Bang was related to Evolution, and I also stated that there was no scientific theory that involves ghosts after death.
Now, you write:
quote:1. Genetics and Evolution are 2 different things even though evolution involves genetics. Genetics is useful.
Ah, but population genetics is specifically the application of evolutionary theory (speciation, adaptation, natural selection, mutation, extinction, etc.) combined with our knowledge of genetics in order to better understand large-scale changes in populations.
If you say that Evolution isn't useful, they you are saying that the entire field of population genetics isn't useful.
Is this what you want to say?
quote:2. I never said the BB theory had anything to do with evolution.
Check what my original question was above. I asked "which parts (of evolution) are not useful science in your opinion?" Since you answered with something about the Big Bang, you actually did say that it had something to do with Evolution.
Now, I know you probably didn't intend to, but this is why it is important to read very carefully and to make sure you understand what is being said or asked before answering.
quote:3. Yes there is
Huh, that's news to me.
Can you please tell me about this scientific theory which involves ghosts after death? If you have a link to information, that would be great.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-20-2005 09:26 AM