Evolution for Kids
Jabriol
> I'm hoping the members of this group can save me some frustrating
> search time!
>
> Does anyone recommend any sites on line that explain the newest
> findings about evolution at an elementary-school level?
>
> What about books that a child might find in the library? Some
> libraries have books that are very outdated. This is a problem for
> parents like me whose knowledge is also very outdated.
>
> Holiday
Holiday,
Are you aware, that the evolution they teach in school is not the evolution
scientist talks about.. At least in The USA?
Marvin Margoshes
evolution. It is available by mail and on their Web site.
What is taught in elementary school is always much less than what experts
know.
Jabriol
> What is taught in elementary school is always much less than what experts
> know.
actually it is incorrect.
Donald E. Flood
Marvin Margoshes wrote in message
<7c3sf0$o51$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>know.
>
http://www4.nas.edu/opus/evolve.nsf
.
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7c3n1v$n...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
> > I'm hoping the members of this group can save me some frustrating
> > search time!
> >
> > Does anyone recommend any sites on line that explain the newest
> > findings about evolution at an elementary-school level?
> >
> > What about books that a child might find in the library? Some
> > libraries have books that are very outdated. This is a problem for
> > parents like me whose knowledge is also very outdated.
> >
> > Holiday
>
> Holiday,
>
> Are you aware, that the evolution they teach in school is not the
evolution
> scientist talks about.. At least in The USA?
How would you know Jabby? The only "evolution" you read about comes out of
religious tracts that consistantly misrepresent evolution, and when the
real thing is presented, you jab your fingers in your ears and chant, "Does
not!", and go into "obtuse mode".
Boikat
>
>
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7c3u06$s...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
> > What is taught in elementary school is always much less than what
experts
> > know.
>
> actually it is incorrect.
No, it is incomplete, but more accurate than "Goddidit!"
Boikat
>
>
dstev...@my-dejanews.com
to the groups listed. However, anyone who objects to Jabriol's crossposting
may wish to refer to his ISP's Acceptable Use Policy at
http://www.concentric.net/support_center/legal/aup.shtml
In article <7c3n1v$n...@journal.concentric.net>,
jab...@cris.com wrote:
>
> Are you aware, that the evolution they teach in school is not the evolution
> scientist talks about.. At least in The USA?
Please demonstrate, with references where applicable, that you know the first
thing about about either what schoolchildren in the U.S. are taught about
evolution or what scientists say about it.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mike Hill
>
>Are you aware, that the evolution they teach in school is not the evolution
>scientist talks about.. At least in The USA?
>
Is this another creation seminar coming?
Steve Estvanik
and general as to be meaningless. history is not taught the way historians
talk about it, nor is any other subject. the real question is whether the
discussion of evolution in schools has been castrated by religious
fundamentalists.
s
stjohnpaul
http://www.icr.org!
mel turner
And while you're at it:
&
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#science
http://www.natcenscied.org/
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html
http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncas/evolution/
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/
http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=darwinsring;list
HTH
Matt Silberstein
<jab...@cris.com>:
>
> > I'm hoping the members of this group can save me some frustrating
> > search time!
> >
> > Does anyone recommend any sites on line that explain the newest
> > findings about evolution at an elementary-school level?
> >
> > What about books that a child might find in the library? Some
> > libraries have books that are very outdated. This is a problem for
> > parents like me whose knowledge is also very outdated.
> >
> > Holiday
>
>Holiday,
>
>Are you aware, that the evolution they teach in school is not the evolution
>scientist talks about.. At least in The USA?
I just saw a book called "Lies my teacher told me" which is about
false information about history that gets taught in our schools. What
was your point?
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, Dr Strangelove,
2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon,
The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, and, last of all, but I hope
not the least, Eyes Wide Shut. I will miss him.
Jabriol
> I just saw a book called "Lies my teacher told me" which is about
> false information about history that gets taught in our schools. What
> was your point?
the dumbing of america?
forced atheism in school etc..
havent heard from you in a while, how ya doing?
Matt Silberstein
<jab...@cris.com>:
>
> > I just saw a book called "Lies my teacher told me" which is about
> > false information about history that gets taught in our schools. What
> > was your point?
>
>the dumbing of america?
And you know it is different from the past because of what? Please
tell me when these lies were not taught. Or did you make that up?
>forced atheism in school etc..
So you have read the book and you know that this is the point. Can you
give any quotes from the book that support this claim? Or any quotes
from anywhere that support the claim?
>havent heard from you in a while, how ya doing?
Fine. I can see you still make things up and say them as though they
were true.
Jabriol
> > > What is taught in elementary school is always much less than what
> experts
> > > know.
> >
> > actually it is incorrect.
>
> No, it is incomplete, but more accurate than "Goddidit!"
>
> Boikat
Evolution is always incomplete. and making up what is missing is no better
than God did it.
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7chms9$n...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
> > > > What is taught in elementary school is always much less than what
> > experts
> > > > know.
> > >
> > > actually it is incorrect.
> >
> > No, it is incomplete, but more accurate than "Goddidit!"
> >
> > Boikat
>
> Evolution is always incomplete.
That's the nature of science, but you never seem to catch on to that fact.
What is it about that simple concept that goes over your head?
> and making up what is missing is no better
> than God did it.
Good thing that evolution (science) doesn't, as a rule, "make things up",
(as opposed to proposing a hypothesis or theory) otherewise, science would
have claimed to have all the answers, like the religious fanatics claim,
long ago.
Boikat
>
>
Jabriol
> > Evolution is always incomplete.
>
> That's the nature of science, but you never seem to catch on to that
fact.
> What is it about that simple concept that goes over your head?
so it is o.k to send children on their way in incompleteness?
> Good thing that evolution (science) doesn't, as a rule, "make things up",
> (as opposed to proposing a hypothesis or theory) otherewise, science
would
> have claimed to have all the answers, like the religious fanatics claim,
> long ago.
>
> Boikat
nope, they put things together, old bones and imaginiation.
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7ci0tg$3...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
> > > Evolution is always incomplete.
> >
> > That's the nature of science, but you never seem to catch on to that
> fact.
> > What is it about that simple concept that goes over your head?
>
> so it is o.k to send children on their way in incompleteness?
To learn about our current understanding, most certainly. Is the glass
half empty or half full? Better than growing up completely ignorant of
science, don't you think? Or do you advocate scientific illiteracy for
students? Is that what you want, a culture of mouth breathers, who's only
answer is "Duh! Godidit!"?
>
>
>
> > Good thing that evolution (science) doesn't, as a rule, "make things
up",
> > (as opposed to proposing a hypothesis or theory) otherewise, science
> would
> > have claimed to have all the answers, like the religious fanatics
claim,
> > long ago.
> >
> > Boikat
>
> nope, they put things together, old bones and imaginiation.
In the case of reconstructions of fossils, to a certain extent, imagination
is involved, but not in the manner which you seem to be implying.. They
also use comparative anatomy, and some simple rules, like in the case of
organisms that possess bilateral symmetry, the left side of the organism is
going to be the mirror image of the right side, and organisms that posses
sililar detailed traits are most likely (though not always) related to some
degree. Why you perceive this as a "problem" is beyond me, except for your
general ignorance of science, but we've been over that before, haven't we?
Boikat
+++ (*).(*) +++
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<01be6e9c$c4c745e0$1565d6d1@bigroy>...
: Is that what you want, a culture of mouth breathers, who's only
: answer is "Duh! Godidit!"?
### That's what the youngsters get at the KH's... God did it. Anything
else is <*gasp*>... heretical... so ignorance abounds (hence Jabbers et
al.)
:
: > nope, they put things together, old bones and imaginiation. Jabs
:
: sililar detailed traits are most likely (though not always) related
to some
: degree. Why you perceive this as a "problem" is beyond me, except
for your
: general ignorance of science, but we've been over that before,
haven't we?
### Jabbers is either so dense, so brain washed/mind controlled that he
simply can't grasp these concepts or they're such a threat to his
religious beliefs he just can *NOT* accept them on a conscious level.
Or as many suspect, he is simply a troll as he keeps the same topics
going endlessly and as long as he can find victims to pull in.
--
Carol....
"I intend to live forever - so far so good."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
:
: Boikat
:
:
:
Jabriol
> Is the glass
> half empty or half full?
when it comes to science, common sense of facts.
a half is a half.
> Or do you advocate scientific illiteracy for
> students?
not at all. but science literacy as you called it has been proven false in
the past.
remember piltdown and the orce man
dstev...@my-dejanews.com
"stjohnpaul" <stjoh...@boatusmail.net> wrote:
> please check out the following site for invaluable information!
> http://www.icr.org!
Thanks for the helpful pointer. However, you've made an error which may cause
some people to misinterpret what you mean to say about the worth of this site.
While many words can be turned into their antonyms by the addition of the
prefix "in-" (e.g., indefinite, insubstantial, insecure and so on),
"valuable" is not one of them. The correct word to use in this situation
would be "valueless".
Furthermore, the "in-" in the word "information" is not meant to convey a
negative quality. You have to add a prefix such as "mis-" to suggest this
meaning.
So what you really meant to say was
please check out the following site for valueless misinformation!
http://www.icr.org!
Right?
Boikat
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7cj4qa$u...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>
> > Is the glass
> > half empty or half full?
>
> when it comes to science, common sense of facts.
>
> a half is a half.
Half full or half emnpty Jabby?
>
>
> > Or do you advocate scientific illiteracy for
> > students?
>
> not at all. but science literacy as you called it has been proven false
in
> the past.
Nope, just corrected and enhanced by further data. Schools can only
present what is currently available, which is still better than nothing.
>
> remember piltdown and the orce man
A hoax that was exposed by scientists (And not universally accepted by
scientists either, to begin with.) and a misidentification that was
corrected by scientists, much the same as "Nebraska Man", was a
misidentified tooth, that was later correctly identified by the original
discoverer. Three examples of where individual scientists were
hoodwinked, or in error, all corrected by other scientists or (in the case
of Neb. Man) the same person who discovered it. Do you propose to shut
down all of science on account of the 1 hoax or 2 misidentifications among
” n”-thousand legitimate discoveries?
Look at it this way:
1) Science does not currently have the "answers to everything", and
probably never will. (Darwin’s quote from the descent of man, not
withstanding) That doesn't mean we don't know anything.
2) Scientists are human and make mistakes, that's why other scientists are
allowed to examine the data, procedures, and the theories that are derived
from the data, so that errors can be detected and corrected. This helps
eliminated the hoax's and mistaken bit's that occasionally drift through.
It worked on Mr. Pilty, it worked on Mr. Orce, it worked on Mr. Neb Man,
and it worked of "Cold Fussion".
3) Teaching current understanding of the various branches of science is not
a bad thing, and is far better than no scientific education at all.
Would you say that the three statements above are all true? If not, why
not?
Boikat
>
>
Jabriol
> And the Flood and Adam and Eve and the Tower of Babel and the
> resurrection and the healings that we now know were false. Why do
> you keep mentioning Piltdown, and never mention all the lies in
> the bible that say that Jesus healed people?
did julius ceasear exsist? by your logic......no
did the eygptians built the pyramids? by your logic...... no
Columbus was a figmant of some portugese imagination.
we can go on to indicate that most hidtory for people famous in history do
not exsist neither, why teach it in school?
Bonz
in message <7cqpi3$s...@journal.concentric.net> :
>
> > And the Flood and Adam and Eve and the Tower of Babel and the
> > resurrection and the healings that we now know were false. Why do
> > you keep mentioning Piltdown, and never mention all the lies in
> > the bible that say that Jesus healed people?
>
>did julius ceasear exsist? by your logic......no
Yes, he did. Are you so stupid that you think people cannot
exist? People cannot HEAL people. Many, many people have existed.
None of them could heal anything.
>did the eygptians built the pyramids? by your logic...... no
>Columbus was a figmant of some portugese imagination.
>
>we can go on to indicate that most hidtory for people famous in history do
>not exsist neither, why teach it in school?
We weren't talking about history, we were talking about the parts
of the bible that modern scholarship has shown to be false.
We know that the story of Eden is wrong. We know that there was
no Tower of Babel. We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth. We
know that the pyramids were 2000 years old before the myth of
Noah was penned. We know there was no Exodus from Egypt.
Robert Gotschall
>
> > > > What is taught in elementary school is always much less than what
> > experts
> > > > know.
> > >
> > > actually it is incorrect.
> >
> > No, it is incomplete, but more accurate than "Goddidit!"
> >
> > Boikat
>
> than God did it.
>
Which god was that again and why could 'he' be the only one?
--
Robert Gotschall (T.O)
"I said 'nine cents', not 'nonsense'."
seen on t-shirt
Karel Peijnenborg
[snip]
>We weren't talking about history, we were talking about the parts
>of the bible that modern scholarship has shown to be false.
>
>We know that the story of Eden is wrong. We know that there was
>no Tower of Babel. We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth. We
>know that the pyramids were 2000 years old before the myth of
>Noah was penned. We know there was no Exodus from Egypt.
Aren't you going a bit over the top, Bonz? Modern exegetical
scholarship hasn't shown these parts to be false. The 'healings'
parts I snipped fall in the same category. All those parts should
not be considered as historically or scientifically correct,
but there is lots of room to be right in besides history and
science. More subjective places perhaps, but not therefore
wrong.
regards,
Karel
--
for email, replace n o s p a m with b i g f o o t
Jabriol
> Are you so stupid that you think people cannot
> exist? People cannot HEAL people. Many, many people have existed.
> None of them could heal anything.
ever heard of a medical doctor?
> We weren't talking about history, we were talking about the parts
> of the bible that modern scholarship has shown to be false.
such as?
> We know that the story of Eden is wrong.
evidence please
> We know that there was
> no Tower of Babel.
evidence please
> We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth
evidence please
> We know there was no Exodus from Egypt.
evidence please
Candle Jack
>evidence please
>evidence please
>evidence please
>evidence please
I think perhaps the onus to provide evidence is on those that are making the
Eden/ Babel/ Flood/ Exodus claims. Can you, without using a Christian
religious text as a reference, provide some evidence to back the existence
of the Garden of Eden? Or the Great Flood?
I doubt it.
As we all know, the Earth was created from the body of Pan Gu after he
hacked his way out of the celestial egg. A billion Chinese can't all be
wrong.
--
Regards,
Candle "From the makers of Play-Doh : PAN GU" Jack
Alex Green
>
>evidence please
>
> > We know that there was
> > no Tower of Babel.
>
>evidence please
>
> > We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth
>
>evidence please
>
> > We know there was no Exodus from Egypt.
>
>evidence please
The structure of the Torah is relevant to the historicity or achaeological
provenance of stories found in it.
Whilst the book of Deuteronomy may be an exception, the rest of the Torah is
constructed like a web page. That is to say, it has been assembled (almost
recreated) from earlier fragments. The redactor who accomplished this feat
is alleged to be Ezra, who had been trained in both the Jewish and
Babylonian scribal traditions. The stories of the Garden of Eden, the Tower
of Babel, the Flood and the Exodus have been copied from earlier sources and
edited into a coherent narrative.
As a consequence, whilst the religious context of the fragments is as
intended by the redactor, the historical and archaeological context may have
been lost.
Sincerely,
Alex Green
Ars artis est celare artem
dsa...@home.com
subject of evolution comes up with religious school groups. Part of our
program is to explain the evolution of different species but I often get
interrupted by a parent/teacher who will then reassure to the children
that this can't happen because I guess in their minds there is no such
thing as evolution. This really puts me into a tough spot because it
doesn't allow me to persent the program effectively. I also have
questioned why these groups come to the museum for a program since they
know that we are science based. Have others run across this problem?
What methods do you use to avoid confrontation with the
parents/teachers?
Regards,
Qué
qb...@home.com
que...@usa.net
Jabriol wrote:
>
> > Are you so stupid that you think people cannot
> > exist? People cannot HEAL people. Many, many people have existed.
> > None of them could heal anything.
>
> ever heard of a medical doctor?
>
> > We weren't talking about history, we were talking about the parts
> > of the bible that modern scholarship has shown to be false.
>
> such as?
>
Candle Jack
>I work in the museum field and often run into difficulties when the
>subject of evolution comes up with religious school groups. Part of our
>program is to explain the evolution of different species but I often get
>interrupted by a parent/teacher who will then reassure to the children
>that this can't happen because I guess in their minds there is no such
>thing as evolution. This really puts me into a tough spot because it
>doesn't allow me to persent the program effectively. I also have
>questioned why these groups come to the museum for a program since they
>know that we are science based. Have others run across this problem?
>What methods do you use to avoid confrontation with the
>parents/teachers?
I've been in similar circumstance. I recall one instance where a teenager
asked how we could tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton. The girl's
mother said, "Boys have one less rib because God took one to make girls". I
tried to correct the mother and even offered to show her a couple of
skeletons so that she could count the ribs herself. She was incensed and
suggested that I should spend more time studying the Bible.
I would suggest that you lay down some ground rules with chaperones before
the tour starts. If the teacher/ parent would like to debate the subject in
a different forum then arrangements should be made. If the chaperone
insists on interrupting during the tour, ask them to leave(much as you would
any other noisy patron). You are there to present, not to debate.
--
Regards,
Candle "Dem Bones" Jack
Mytigodess
>
>evidence please
Just by reading the book of Genesis alone, you can see how much human insight
was put into describing the creation (i.e. the light was created twice, et al)
Where is your proof that it existed? If I were to say Santa and the Easter
Bunny beamed me up in the UFO where I sat in a hot tub with Elvis, it would be
a ridiculous statement for me to say to you, "What is your proof that it didn't
happen?"
>
>
>
> > We know that there was
> > no Tower of Babel.
>
>evidence please
>
Again, what is your evidence, apart from tales in the bible that it existed?
>
>
> > We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth
>
>evidence please
>
I could go on about how WRONG this story is by just the scientific
impossibilities of the situation, but it would probably go over your head.
A wooden ship in the water for close to a year with all that weight would not
hold up that long. It would warp and unravel within the first 2 months.
Human and animal waste by products. Or do you think god gave all on board
chronic constipation and took away their need for food or water? If they all
ate, they would be shovelling the stuff off 24-7 given all the types of species
of animals and they still wouldn't be able to get it all out. If you have all
that waste lying around, you would be asking for some serious ailments in a few
days and death within weeks.
The diet impossibilities are great! Some of the animals that would have been
on board would have been meat eaters that eat only fresh kill. This would mean
the extra storage of other animal for food. And the weight of all the food
like trees, fruits, vegetables... for all the different diets for a trip that
was almost a year would have weighed more than all the animals, people on the
ark.
If you really want to see in details all the impossibilities of the Noah story,
creation... go to http://www.talkorigins.com
Peace to all and laughter to the world!
-myti-
http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/ForAGoodTimeComeIn/
Doug Weller
dsa...@home.com said...
>
> Jabriol wrote:
> >
[SNIP]
> >
> > > We weren't talking about history, we were talking about the parts
> > > of the bible that modern scholarship has shown to be false.
> >
> > such as?
> >
> >
> > evidence please
> >
> > > no Tower of Babel.
> >
> > evidence please
> >
> >
> > evidence please
> >
> >
> > evidence please
>
>
Note that Jabriol has raised all these questions before and been given as much
evidence as anyone could wish for, but he writes as though this hasn't
happened.
Not much point in trying to educate him, but the spinoff from his trolls can
be interesting.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Digga
>
> In article <36F43441...@home.com>, on 20 Mar 1999 18:45:34 -0500,
> dsa...@home.com said...
> >
> > Jabriol wrote:
> > > > We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth
> > >
> > > evidence please
Actually there is archaeological evidence for this. I can't remember
the exact details but some bloke was digging in a huge valley in the
Middle east, going through material from a specific culture. Suddenly he
comes across a layer of clay, which seems to spread over the whole
valley floor. Under this was evidence of a more advanced culture with
many more inhabitants.
I remember the bloke digging it, telegrammed (so it must have been some
time ago) London with the message 'I have found the flood'.
I think its entirely possible that the flood was localised to this
valley, but would have seemed like the whole world. Besides this there
is allways that slightly dubious evidence of the Ark in Turkey (although
I personally believe it is a huge ship).
One final point about the Eden story, its highly unlikely that this was
the sequence of events, BUT it is probable that the story is metaphor. I
don't think that everything in the Bible should be taken as per se, and
must be interpreted. However it still doesn't change the over all effect
and I find it more revealing when interpreted anyway.
Yours,
Ben
Doug Weller
bjp...@york.ac.uk said...
> Actually there is archaeological evidence for this. I can't remember
> the exact details but some bloke was digging in a huge valley in the
> Middle east, going through material from a specific culture. Suddenly he
> comes across a layer of clay, which seems to spread over the whole
> valley floor. Under this was evidence of a more advanced culture with
> many more inhabitants.
There were quite a few catastrophic floods. I think I know the one you are
talking about, but I'm not sure about the 'more advanced culture'.
Which 'ark' in Turkey do you mean? Wyatt's one is just a geological formation.
Bud
<36F662C0...@york.ac.uk>...
>
> Actually there is archaeological evidence for this. I can't remember
> the exact details but some bloke was digging in a huge valley in the
> Middle east, going through material from a specific culture. Suddenly he
> comes across a layer of clay, which seems to spread over the whole
> valley floor. Under this was evidence of a more advanced culture with
> many more inhabitants.
> time ago) London with the message 'I have found the flood'.
The name of the individual was Sir leonard Woollsey and he sent his
telegram in the 1920's. Since that time, his claim has been debunked based
on further investigation of the evidence. " We now know that this flood
stratum was deposited by a change in the course of the Euphrates River that
meandered rather widely over the flood plain, much as the Mississippi River
once did before flood control measures were taken." .
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9156/ssotb.htm
And the "flood layer" was not found across a valley floor, rather a large
stretch of flat area. ( There are no real mountains (or mountain valleys in
the area.) .
http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/letwool.html
Bonz
message <36F662C0...@york.ac.uk> :
>Doug Weller wrote:
>>
>> In article <36F43441...@home.com>, on 20 Mar 1999 18:45:34 -0500,
>> dsa...@home.com said...
>> >
>> > Jabriol wrote:
>
>> > > > We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth
>> > >
>> > > evidence please
>
> Actually there is archaeological evidence for this. I can't remember
>the exact details but some bloke was digging in a huge valley in the
>Middle east, going through material from a specific culture.
"I can't remember" is not the same as "I have my head so far up
my ass that I can't see daylight"
> Suddenly he
>comes across a layer of clay, which seems to spread over the whole
>valley floor. Under this was evidence of a more advanced culture with
>many more inhabitants.
> I remember the bloke digging it, telegrammed (so it must have been some
>time ago) London with the message 'I have found the flood'.
Now all you have to do is find out who it was, what he said, and
why no one thinks he was right.
>I think its entirely possible that the flood was localised to this
>valley, but would have seemed like the whole world. Besides this there
>is allways that slightly dubious evidence of the Ark in Turkey (although
>I personally believe it is a huge ship).
Why would anyone here care what you personally believe? So far
you have shown yourself to be clueless.
>
> One final point about the Eden story, its highly unlikely that this was
>the sequence of events, BUT it is probable that the story is metaphor. I
>don't think that everything in the Bible should be taken as per se, and
>must be interpreted. However it still doesn't change the over all effect
>and I find it more revealing when interpreted anyway.
>
>Yours,
>
>Ben
い Bonz い
Usual disclaimer. Please deSPAM before sending Email.
Aaron
> > > > > We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth
> > > >
> > > > evidence please
>
> Actually there is archaeological evidence for this. I can't remember
Then why the fuck are you bothering us with it? Do you expect us to
believe you? Are you as dense as you sound?
> the exact details but some bloke was digging in a huge valley in the
> Middle east, going through material from a specific culture. Suddenly he
> comes across a layer of clay, which seems to spread over the whole
> valley floor. Under this was evidence of a more advanced culture with
> many more inhabitants.
And this means exactly _what_? Are you enough of an archaeologist to make
a judgement call on the specious "evidence" you've so far related? Were
you aware that non-catastrophic floods happen on a regular basis, and
_usually_ involve river valleys?
> I remember the bloke digging it, telegrammed (so it must have
been some
> time ago) London with the message 'I have found the flood'.
>
> I think its entirely possible that the flood was localised to this
> valley, but would have seemed like the whole world. Besides this there
> is allways that slightly dubious evidence of the Ark in Turkey (although
> I personally believe it is a huge ship).
Oh... now you are explaining yourself. I would be surprised if the
ancient Hebrews thought that their world consisted of just one river
valley, though - they -were_ nomads, after all.
That Turkish hoax is old hat, though.
> One final point about the Eden story, its highly unlikely that
this was
> the sequence of events, BUT it is probable that the story is metaphor. I
> don't think that everything in the Bible should be taken as per se, and
> must be interpreted.
Oh goody! Who gets to make the rules regarding interpretation? The
Mormons? The Moonies? The Roman Catholic Church?
> However it still doesn't change the over all effect
> and I find it more revealing when interpreted anyway.
Well, it _is_ your book of fairy-tales. Your interpretation of them
doesn't make them any more real, though.
--
|Aaron I. Spielman|aa...@rockethouse.net|My opinions are my own|fnord!|
|Atheist #1467| Official Lunatic Biker of the EAC |www.rockethouse.net|
| "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, |
| hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats" ---H.L. Mencken |
Kathy Wilson
>> > Jabriol wrote:
>
>> > > > We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth
>> > >
the occurance of the flood in the book "The Bible as History" by Werner
Keller (2nd Rev. Ed). check out pages 43-69.
The excavation in question was conducted at Tel-al-Muqayyar in 1929 by a
group of American and British archaologist. There they discovered concrete
proof of an immense flood that deposited 10ft of clay over a strata
containing evidence of human occupation.
Now, after reading the entire account in the book, you still think The Flood
is a myth, well...how do explain the evidence?
Regards,
Kathy
Digga
>
> In article <36F662C0...@york.ac.uk>, Digga <bjp...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth
> > > > >
> >
> > Actually there is archaeological evidence for this. I can't remember
>
> Then why the fuck are you bothering us with it? Do you expect us to
> believe you? Are you as dense as you sound?
>
No I have a BSc in Archaeology from the University of York. Besides you
don't have to read this at all.
>
> And this means exactly _what_? Are you enough of an archaeologist to make
> a judgement call on the specious "evidence" you've so far related?
Probably not, but most of archaeology is discussing theories already
attained and throwing new ones in. I was merely musing the ideas.
> Were
> you aware that non-catastrophic floods happen on a regular basis, and
> _usually_ involve river valleys?
Considereing I was trying to recall something I heard back in the first
year of secondry school, I think I remebered the best I could.
>
> Oh... now you are explaining yourself. I would be surprised if the
> ancient Hebrews thought that their world consisted of just one river
> valley, though - they -were_ nomads, after all.
> That Turkish hoax is old hat, though.
Again, it was just a theory, an idea etc...
>
>
> Oh goody! Who gets to make the rules regarding interpretation? The
> Mormons? The Moonies? The Roman Catholic Church?
There are no rules. A faith is a personal thing. Its the relationship
between you and God and nothing more. What ever rules and regualtions
religion puts into it shouldn't get in the way of that one basic fact.
>
> Well, it _is_ your book of fairy-tales. Your interpretation of them
> doesn't make them any more real, though.
The fact that you fit the classic sterotypical athiest is kind of
dissapointing. Im not telling you believe in God, thats something for
you to decide (which it sounds like you have done). Im simply stating my
point of view. Getting angry with me won't solve anything and indeed
makes you seem a complete prat.
Anyway have a nice life...
Ben
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
Organization: Edmonton Community Network
Distribution:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2.6]
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.161.206.7
Message-ID: <36f7b...@ecn.ab.ca>
Date: 23 Mar 99 16:10:26 GMT
Lines: 27
Kathy Wilson (katydid...@yahoo.com) wrote:
: >> > > > We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth
: Sure it was....There is a very good acount of the archaeology that supports
: the occurance of the flood in the book "The Bible as History" by Werner
: Keller (2nd Rev. Ed). check out pages 43-69.
: The excavation in question was conducted at Tel-al-Muqayyar in 1929 by a
: group of American and British archaologist. There they discovered concrete
: proof of an immense flood that deposited 10ft of clay over a strata
: containing evidence of human occupation.
Big whoop -- an area got flooded. Happens all the time. Maybe that was
even the one that, in the re-telling of it, eventually got mutated into
the myth of the deluge. But a world-wide one put forth by the christian
(formerly Babylonian) myth? Ridiculous.
--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************
Boikat
Kathy Wilson <katydid...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<7d7ign$lpq$1...@news.mr.net>...
>
> >> > Jabriol wrote:
> >
> >> > > > We know that Noah's Flood is a silly myth
> >> > >
> Sure it was....There is a very good acount of the archaeology that
supports
> the occurance of the flood in the book "The Bible as History" by Werner
> Keller (2nd Rev. Ed). check out pages 43-69.
>
> The excavation in question was conducted at Tel-al-Muqayyar in 1929 by a
> group of American and British archaologist. There they discovered
concrete
> proof of an immense flood that deposited 10ft of clay over a strata
> containing evidence of human occupation.
>
> Now, after reading the entire account in the book, you still think The
Flood
> is a myth, well...how do explain the evidence?
Local flood. Check out "Noah's Flood", by William Ryan and Wlater Pitman.
The "flood" was local, not "world wide" in the Bibluical sense..
Boikat
Jabriol
> Just by reading the book of Genesis alone, you can see how much human
insight
> was put into describing the creation (i.e. the light was created twice,
et al)
A common error for those who do not read the bible. Genesis was made for the
Human perspective. From the point of view of how a person standing on the
surface woulds see things. If you went to an isolated tribe of inuit, how
would you explain the desert? a rainforest?
The intent of the Bible, more so Genesis, was a breif description that
should have statified man at that time. It would be a waste of time to
explain to him, things that he could not precive with his five senses.
The Bible is not a science manual. If you closesly at the description of
time period, of different creation events, they are very close to how
scientist believe things appeared on the planet.
Issues where Science confronts religion
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Issues
Jabriol
> Note that Jabriol has raised all these questions before and been given as
much
> evidence as anyone could wish for, but he writes as though this hasn't
> happened.
It is the nature of Usenet, many people hook on to usenet all the time.
so the questions raised may be new to them
Jabriol
> I also have
> questioned why these groups come to the museum for a program since they
> know that we are science based.
because biology, more so Evolution is presented as a fact. Since creation is
not allowed in school as an alternative. A parent fear that his child might
take the teacher od instructor words over his. Field trips of this nature is
done, because if a child answered any other question about evolution in
class
he may flunk, if he stated that the origin of man is by a creator, the trip
reinforces that atheism is correct, science is correct, and religion is
superticious nonsense, based on tradition and fear of the unknwon.
It is a good form of intimidation, and assurence that scientist will not
study the posibility of a creator. actually you remove future potential
scientist who may have faith from science altogether.
Jabriol
> Can you, without using a Christian
> religious text as a reference, provide some evidence to back the
existence
> of the Garden of Eden?
*** it-1 677 Eden ***
Location of Eden. The original site of the garden of Eden is conjectural.
The principal means of identifying its geographic location is the Bible's
description of the river "issuing out of Eden," which thereafter divided
into four "heads," producing the rivers named as the Euphrates, Hiddekel,
Pishon, and Gihon. (Ge 2:10-14) The Euphrates (Heb., Perath') is well known,
and "Hiddekel" is the name used for the Tigris in ancient inscriptions.
(Compare also Da 10:4.) The other two rivers, the Pishon and the Gihon,
however, are unidentified.
The traditional location for the garden of Eden has long been suggested to
have been a mountainous area some 225 km (140 mi) SW of Mount Ararat and a
few kilometers S of Lake Van, in the eastern part of modern Turkey. That
Eden may have been surrounded by some natural barrier, such as mountains,
could be suggested by the fact that cherubs are stated to have been
stationed only at the E of the garden, from which point Adam and Eve made
their exit.-Ge 3:24.
> Or the Great Flood?
** it-1 609-11 Deluge ***
Timing of the Deluge. The Deluge did not come suddenly without warning.
Years of time were spent building the ark, time that Noah the "preacher of
righteousness" also used in warning that wicked generation. (2Pe 2:5)
Finally the time limit was up "in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in
the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month." The "male and female
of every sort of flesh" had been brought into the ark with Noah's family, as
well as a sufficient food supply for all, and "after that Jehovah shut the
door." Then "the floodgates of the heavens were opened." (Ge 7:11, 16) There
was an incessant torrential downpour for "forty days and forty nights"; "the
waters continued overwhelming the earth" a hundred and fifty days. (Ge 7:4,
12, 24) Five months after the downpour began, the ark "came to rest on the
mountains of Ararat." (Ge 8:4) It was nearly two and a half months later
before "the tops of the mountains appeared" (Ge 8:5), another three months
before Noah removed the ark's covering to see that the earth had practically
drained (Ge 8:13), and nearly two months later when the door was opened and
the survivors set foot on dry ground once again.-Ge 8:14-18.
Noah and his family entered the ark in the 600th year of Noah's life, the
2nd month (October-November), the 17th day. (Ge 7:11) One year later (a year
consisting of 360 days) was the 17th day, 2nd month, 601st year. Ten days
after that would be the 27th day of the 2nd month, when they came out; a
total of 370 days, or parts of 371 separate days, spent in the ark. (Ge
8:13, 14) In the log that Noah kept, it appears he used months of 30 days
each, 12 of them equaling 360 days. In this way he avoided all the
complicated fractions involved had he used strictly lunar months consisting
of slightly more than 29 1/2 days. That such calculations were used in the
account is evident from the fact that a five-month period consisted of 150
days.-Ge 7:11, 24; 8:3, 4.
The Floodwaters. It has been said that if all the moisture in the atmosphere
were suddenly released as rain it would not amount to even a couple of
inches if spread over the earth's surface. So from what source was this vast
deluge of Noah's day? According to the Genesis account, God said to Noah:
"Here I [Jehovah] am bringing the deluge [or, "heavenly ocean"; Heb.,
mab·bul'] of waters upon the earth." (Ge 6:17, ftn) Describing what
happened, the next chapter says: "All the springs of the vast watery deep
were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." (Ge 7:11)
So overwhelming was the Deluge that "all the tall mountains that were under
the whole heavens came to be covered."-Ge 7:19.
Where did this "heavenly ocean" come from? The Genesis account of creation
tells how on the second "day" Jehovah made an expanse about the earth, and
this expanse (called "Heaven") formed a division between the waters below
it, that is, the oceans, and the waters above it. (Ge 1:6-8) The waters
suspended above the expanse evidently remained there from the second "day"
of creation until the Flood. This is what the apostle Peter was talking
about when he recounted that there "were heavens from of old and an earth
standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of
God." Those "heavens" and the waters above and beneath them were the means
that God's word called into operation, and "by those means the world of that
time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water." (2Pe 3:5, 6)
Various explanations have been offered as to how the water was held aloft
until the Flood and as to the processes that resulted in its falling. But
these are only speculative. The Bible says simply that God made the expanse
with waters above it and that he brought the Deluge. His almighty power
could easily accomplish it.
Since, as the Genesis account says, "all the tall mountains" were covered
with water, where is all that water now? Evidently it is right here on the
earth. It is believed that there was a time when the oceans were smaller and
the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river
channels extending far out under the oceans. It should also be noted that
scientists have stated that mountains in the past were much lower than at
present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas. As
to the present situation, it is said that "there is ten times as much water
by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land
evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and
one-half miles deep." (National Geographic, January 1945, p. 105) So, after
the floodwaters fell, but before the raising of mountains and the lowering
of seabeds and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was more than
enough water to cover "all the tall mountains," as the inspired record
says.-Ge 7:19.
Effect on the Earth. With the Deluge great changes came, for example, the
life span of humans dropped very rapidly. Some have suggested that prior to
the Flood the waters above the expanse shielded out some of the harmful
radiation and that, with the waters gone, cosmic radiation genetically
harmful to man increased. However, the Bible is silent on the matter.
Incidentally, any change in radiation would have altered the rate of
formation of radioactive carbon-14 to such an extent as to invalidate all
radiocarbon dates prior to the Flood.
With the sudden opening of the 'springs of the watery deep' and "the
floodgates of the heavens," untold billions of tons of water deluged the
earth. (Ge 7:11) This may have caused tremendous changes in earth's surface.
The earth's crust is relatively thin (estimated at between 30 km [20 mi] and
160 km [100 mi] thick), stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of
kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there
was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently
were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins
were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now
about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the
earth's crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising
of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water
pressures alone were equal to "2 tons per square inch," sufficient to
fossilize fauna and flora quickly.-See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch,
by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62.
What evidence proves that there truly was a global deluge?
Other possible evidence of a drastic change: Remains of mammoths and
rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these
were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan
ice. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 328) In fact, some were found with food undigested
in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they
died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of
tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of
many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found
in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed
simultaneously. Some have pointed to such finds as definite physical proof
of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a universal
flood. Others, however, favor explanations for the death of these animals
that do not involve an earth-wide catastrophe. Proof that the Flood occurred
is not dependent on such fossils and frozen animal remains.
Flood Legends. Such a cataclysm as the Deluge, which washed the whole world
of that time out of existence, would never be forgotten by the survivors.
They would talk about it to their children and their children's children.
For 500 years after the Deluge, Shem lived on to relate the event to many
generations. He died only ten years before the birth of Jacob. Moses
preserved the true account in Genesis. Sometime after the Flood, when
God-defying people built the Tower of Babel, Jehovah confused their language
and scattered them "over all the surface of the earth." (Ge 11:9) It was
only natural that these people took with them stories of the Flood and
passed them on from father to son. The fact that there are not merely a few
but perhaps hundreds of different stories about that great Deluge, and that
such stories are found among the traditions of many primitive races the
world over, is a strong proof that all these people had a common origin and
that their early forefathers shared that Flood experience in common.-CHART,
Vol. 1, p. 328.
These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the
Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an
otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind
preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain,
the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and
the American Indians-all of these have their Flood stories. The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, p. 319) states: "Flood
stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though
most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it
and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the
continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 .
. . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for
the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human
race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not
all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion
that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will
not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not
interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and
pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of
time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written
by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition."-Edited
by G. Bromiley, 1982.
In times past, certain primitive people (in Australia, Egypt, Fiji, Society
Islands, Peru, Mexico, and other places) preserved a possible remnant of
these traditions about the Flood by observing in November a 'Feast of
Ancestors' or a 'Festival of the Dead.' Such customs reflected a memory of
the destruction caused by the Deluge. According to the book Life and Work at
the Great Pyramid, the festival in Mexico was held on the 17th of November
because they "had a tradition that at that time the world had been
previously destroyed; and they dreaded lest a similar catastrophe would, at
the end of a cycle, annihilate the human race." (By Professor C. Piazzi
Smyth, Edinburgh, 1867, Vol. II, pp. 390, 391) Notes the book The Worship of
the Dead: "This festival [of the dead] is . . . held by all on or about the
very day on which, according to the Mosaic account, the Deluge took place,
viz., the seventeenth day of the second month-the month nearly corresponding
with our November." (By J. Garnier, London, 1904, p. 4) Interestingly, the
Bible reports that the Flood began "in the second month, on the seventeenth
day of the month." (Ge 7:11) That "second month" corresponds to the latter
part of October and the first part of November on our calendar.
Some, such as Calvin and Delitzsch, have argued in favor of Eden's situation
somewhere near the head of the Persian Gulf in Lower Mesopotamia,
approximately at the place where the Tigris and the Euphrates draw near
together. They associated the Pishon and Gihon with canals between these
streams. However, this would make these rivers tributaries, rather than
branches dividing off from an original source. The Hebrew text points,
rather, to a location in the mountainous region N of the Mesopotamian
plains, the area where the Euphrates and Tigris rivers have their present
sources. Thus The Anchor Bible (1964), in its notes on Genesis 2:10, states:
"In Heb[rew] the mouth of the river is called 'end' (Josh xv 5, <G<Þ>G>Jos
<G<Ü>G>xviii 19); hence the plural of roīs 'head' must refer here to the
upper course. . . . This latter usage is well attested for the Akk[adian]
cognate resu." The fact that the Euphrates and Tigris rivers do not now
proceed from a single source, as well as the impossibility of definitely
determining the identification of the Pishon and Gihon rivers, is possibly
explained by the effects of the Noachian Flood, which undoubtedly altered
considerably the topographical features of the earth, filling in the courses
of some rivers and creating others.
Doug Weller
katydid...@yahoo.com said...
>
> Now, after reading the entire account in the book, you still think The Flood
> is a myth, well...how do explain the evidence?
>
>
is the idea that only one family survived, that they built an ark and were
in it for a year with pairs and sevens of all animals, etc. How does evidence
for a flood in an area of Mesopotamia provide evidence for all this?
Capella
Sorry but I don't buy that. At least the primitive Isrealites could
have gotten the order right. Light (supposedly the big bang) was
after the earth already existed, plants were created before the sun,
etc...
Most likely the Genesis myth was derived from much older creation
myths such as "Enuma Elish" where the creation of each generation
of gods matches what was created on a particular day in Genesis.
I have an article about this on my website:
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
Capella #5
Candle Jack
Jabby, I am stunned by the sheer volume of your rebuttal. And my what BIG
words! One might almost think you knew what you were talking about.
BTW, does this sound familiar?
"Can you, without using a Christian religious text as a reference, provide
some evidence to back the existence of the Garden of Eden?"
Ge 2:10-14
Da 10:4
Ge 3:24.
Ge 7:11, 16
Ge 7:4,12, 24
Ge 8:5
Ge 8:13
Ge 8:14-18.
Ge 7:11
Ge 8:13, 14
Ge 7:11, 24; 8:3, 4.
Ge 6:17, ftn
Ge 7:11
Ge 7:19
and many. many more
Did I stutter?
--
Regards,
Candle "Read Twice, Write Once" Jack
Candle Jack
So in the interest of equal airtime, you can expect me at your church this
sunday giving an Evolution sermon. See, we can work together on this.
--
Regards,
Candle "Going around, coming around" Jack
~~ Kitchon Quean ~~
Kathy Wilson <katydid...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<7d7ign$lpq$1...@news.mr.net>...
: The excavation in question was conducted at Tel-al-Muqayyar in 1929
by a
: group of American and British archaologist. There they discovered
concrete
: proof of an immense flood that deposited 10ft of clay over a strata
: containing evidence of human occupation.
$$$ All in one small area? What about in other places like on Mt.
Everest, Mt. St.Hellens... the Appalachian chains of Mt's.... 10' of
clay silt there too? And in Australia? And on the Islands out in the
Ocean? No 10' where I live... just limestone formed when it was an
inland sea here.
:
: Now, after reading the entire account in the book, you still think
The Flood
: is a myth, well...how do explain the evidence?
$$$ All the evidence is in one place? Then it was a LOCAL flood like
our Midwest suffered a few years ago... not a global flood.
--
Carol....
"A messy kitchen is a happy kitchen and my kitchen is delirious."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
:
: Regards,
: Kathy
:
:
:
Noah Simoneaux
(big snip)
> The fact that you fit the classic sterotypical athiest is kind of
>dissapointing. Im not telling you believe in God, thats something for
>you to decide (which it sounds like you have done). Im simply stating my
>point of view. Getting angry with me won't solve anything and indeed
>makes you seem a complete prat.
>
> Anyway have a nice life...
>
>Ben
>
Stating your point of view and calling an old book "proof" that it's
valid. Nope, not proof. Just a silly old book. Have a nice
afterlife(since this life isn't the important one). :/
Noah Simoneaux
maff91
>
> > I also have
> > questioned why these groups come to the museum for a program since they
> > know that we are science based.
>
>because biology, more so Evolution is presented as a fact. Since creation is
>not allowed in school as an alternative. A parent fear that his child might
>take the teacher od instructor words over his. Field trips of this nature is
>done, because if a child answered any other question about evolution in
>class
>he may flunk, if he stated that the origin of man is by a creator, the trip
>reinforces that atheism is correct, science is correct, and religion is
>superticious nonsense, based on tradition and fear of the unknwon.
>It is a good form of intimidation, and assurence that scientist will not
>study the posibility of a creator. actually you remove future potential
>scientist who may have faith from science altogether.
The world needs more JW janitors.
maff91
[snip]
A global flood cannot explain the sorting of fossils observed in the
geological record. This was recognized even prior to the proposal of
evolutionary theory. See the Problems with a Global
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Flood FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Flood Geology FAQs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
jw-general.html
Jehovah's Witnesses in General = By Walter Smith: On the
subject of the Jehovah's Witnesses / Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society being misleading/dishonest with some of their quotes, Mark
Sornson writ...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-general.html
Jehovah's Witnesses and Evolution
The Jehovah's Witness _Life_ book dismisses the evidence for
human evolution with a few sweeping generalities. This article shows
in detail the gross misrepresentation of evidence and the selective
misuse of quotations and references.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-evolution.html
Review of JW book, _Life_, by a former Witness
The Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a form of old-earth creationism,
which is expounded in their definitive anti-evolution book, _Life: How
Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?_. A brief synopsis of the
arguments in the main chapters about evolution is given.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html
jw-dishonesty.html
Dishonesty of Jehovah's Witnesses = By C J Silverio: This book [Life:
How did it get here? is the straw that broke the JW's .....
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-dishonesty.html
The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water
An examination of some of the problems surrounding the vapor/water
canopy hypothesis. Jehovah's Witnesses and a number of
creationists have claimed that water vapor was held in the upper
atmosphere prior to the Deluge. This article examines a few of the
physical difficulties presented by such a hypothesis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html
http://www.keatinge.demon.co.uk/JW.htm
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
Creacionismo scientífico: un dogma religioso que combina masiva
ignorancia con increible arrogancia.
Creacionista: (1) Una persona adepta al creacionismo. (2) Una
perosona con el mínimo nivel de inteligencia que aún le permite
hacer labores simples (3) Una persona que ni la grama sabe cortar.
(4) Un mentiroso o repartidor de mentiras (5) Una pesona que cree
fácilmente que lo que le cuentan es verdad.
Jabriol
> So in the interest of equal airtime, you can expect me at your church
this
> sunday giving an Evolution sermon. See, we can work together on this.
> --
> Regards,
> Candle "Going around, coming around" Jack
if you allow me to teack creation in the public school system in the USA
as an alternarive to the origin of man 5 day a week. deal?
Digga
I never called the 'Silly old book' proof. In fact the bible proves
nothing. Its still the personal realtionship with God, and whether you
belive in it or not, thats the important thing...
Oh and this life does count... :)
Ben
Dick C.
Since you have been corrected so many times, and you know that everytime
you ask the same stupid question you will be buried in answers that show you
to be a complete fool, one can only wonder why you bother. You must have some
great desire to have the entire world see you as a fool
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
Dick C.
your church to equal that of the time that evolution is taught in school.
Something like an hour a day for about 2 weeks per person, then no more
teaching.
Elf Sternberg
Digga <bjp...@york.ac.uk> writes:
> I never called the 'Silly old book' proof. In fact the bible proves
>nothing. Its still the personal realtionship with God, and whether you
>belive in it or not, thats the important thing...
Yes, but the words you use and the alliances you form all
circle around definitions found in that book. Your "personal
relationship" gets its shape and form from the first book you
encountered and the illusions fed to you by the culture in which you
find yourself. If you were in Iran, you'd be knee-deep in Allah.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
If you're so smart, why aren't you naked?
A.A 1493 http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
dstev...@my-dejanews.com
talk-o...@ediacara.org wrote:
[referring to Jabriol]
> You must have some great desire to have the entire world see you as a fool
You're half right.
It's pretty clear that Jabriol has a great desire to have the entire world see
him -- his crosspost fetish proves that.
I don't think it matters much *how* they see him, as long as they do.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bud
<7datuo$1fg...@Cravenhome.drizzle.com>...
> In article <7d96v3$f...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com wrote:
> >
> > > Note that Jabriol has raised all these questions before and been
given as
> >much
> > > evidence as anyone could wish for, but he writes as though this
hasn't
> > > happened.
> >
> >It is the nature of Usenet, many people hook on to usenet all the time.
> >so the questions raised may be new to them
> >
>
> Since you have been corrected so many times, and you know that everytime
> you ask the same stupid question you will be buried in answers that show
you
some
> great desire to have the entire world see you as a fool
>
publicly humiliated or chastised. Maybe Jabriol is one of them.
Doug Weller
jab...@cris.com said...
> > Note that Jabriol has raised all these questions before and been given as
> much
> > evidence as anyone could wish for, but he writes as though this hasn't
> > happened.
>
> It is the nature of Usenet, many people hook on to usenet all the time.
> so the questions raised may be new to them
>
Jabriol
> No one doubts that on this major flood plain there were floods. The myth
bit
> is the idea that only one family survived, that they built an ark and
were
> in it for a year with pairs and sevens of all animals, etc. How does
evidence
> for a flood in an area of Mesopotamia provide evidence for all this?
>
> Doug
how about africa?
Flood Legend Supports Bible Account
THE global Deluge of Noah’s day is a historical fact. Versions of the
account are found in the oral history of many different civilizations around
the world. In the African country of Chad, the Moussaye tribe explains the
Flood like this:
‘Once upon a time, in a faraway place, there lived a family. One day, the
mother of this family wanted to prepare a sumptuous meal for her loved ones.
So she took her mortar and pestle to pound the grain into flour. At that
time the sky was much closer than it is now. In fact, if you reached up with
your hand, you could touch it. She pounded the grain with all her strength,
and the millet she pounded quickly turned to flour. But as she pounded, the
woman carelessly lifted the pestle too high, and she poked a hole in the
sky! Immediately, a great quantity of water started falling to the earth.
This was no ordinary rain. It rained for seven days and seven nights until
the whole earth was covered with water. As the rain fell, the sky began to
rise until it ended up where it is now—unreachably high. What a catastrophe
for humanity! Since then, we have lost the privilege of touching the sky
with our hands.’
Interestingly, ancient accounts telling of a global flood can be found all
around the world. Native civilizations of the Americas as well as Aborigines
of Australia all have stories about it. The details may differ, but most
accounts contain the thought that the earth was covered by water and only a
few people survived in a man-made vessel. The widespread presence of this
theme adds support to the fact that a worldwide Deluge did occur, as
reported in the Bible.—Genesis 7:11-20.
Jabriol
> > The Bible is not a science manual. If you closesly at the description
of
> > time period, of different creation events, they are very close to how
> > scientist believe things appeared on the planet.
> >
>
> Sorry but I don't buy that. At least the primitive Isrealites could
> have gotten the order right. Light (supposedly the big bang) was
> after the earth already existed, plants were created before the sun,
> etc...
>
> Most likely the Genesis myth was derived from much older creation
> myths such as "Enuma Elish" where the creation of each generation
> of gods matches what was created on a particular day in Genesis.
What Does Genesis Say?
AS WITH other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first
chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to
investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to
mold it to fit some theoretical framework. Also to be remembered, the
Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation. Rather, it
covers major events in a progressive way, describing what things were
formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or “day,”
in which each first appeared.
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it
approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes
events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been
present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth
Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in
comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and
the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly
observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a ‘greater light
that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that dominates the
night.’—Genesis 1:14-18.
The first part of Genesis indicates that the earth could have existed for
billions of years before the first Genesis “day,” though it does not say for
how long. However, it does describe what earth’s condition was just before
that first “day” began: “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and
there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God’s active
force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”—Genesis 1:2.
How Long Is a Genesis “Day”?
Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours.
However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller
period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the
creative periods are called one “day”: “This is a history of the heavens and
the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative
periods] that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”
The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time.
Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies
includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or
for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put
for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” 1
This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they
were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also
allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions “evening” and “morning” relative to
the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long?
Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as
his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They
may divide up that lifetime “day,” saying “in the morning [or dawn] of his
life” or “in the evening [or twilight] of his life.” So ‘evening and
morning’ in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24
hours.
“Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of
seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare
Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day.
(Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew
10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could
likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums. What, then, took
place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific?
Following is a review of these “days” as expressed in Genesis.
First “Day”
“‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling
the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be
evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3, 5.
Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first
“day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly
observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this
first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and
nights.
10 Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long
period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light
bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it
says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation
of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be
seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light
diffused,” as indicated by a comment about ÞGe 1 Üverse 3 in Rotherham’s
Emphasised Bible.—See footnote b for ÞGe 1 Üverse 14.
Second “Day”
“‘Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur
between the waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded to make the expanse
and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse
and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And
God began to call the expanse Heaven.”—Genesis 1:6-8.
Some translations use the word “firmament” instead of “expanse.” From this
the argument is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths
that represent this “firmament” as a metal dome. But even the King James
Version Bible, which uses “firmament,” says in the margin, “expansion.” This
is because the Hebrew word ra·qi'a`, translated “expanse,” means to stretch
out or spread out or expand.
The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how. In
whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the
‘waters above’ had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be
said to fly in “the expanse of the heavens,” as stated at Genesis 1:20.
Third “Day”
“‘Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and
let the dry land appear.’ And it came to be so. And God began calling the
dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas.”
(Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done.
No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the
formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as
catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his
knowledge of the earth, a variety of developments concerning earth’s history
are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their
waves were limited by dry land—many things in general about the creation,
spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a
building, the Bible says that God asked Job: “Into what have its socket
pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?”—Job 38:6.
Interestingly, like “socket pedestals,” earth’s crust is much thicker under
continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the
underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. “The idea that mountains and
continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be
valid,” says Putnam’s Geology. 2 Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick,
but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate
about twice that far. And all earth’s layers press inward upon earth’s core
from all directions, making it like a great “cornerstone” of support.
Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the
important point is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the
stages in the forming of the earth.
Land Plants on Third “Day”
The Bible account adds: “‘Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth,
vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their
kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.’ And it came to be
so.”—Genesis 1:11.
Thus by the close of this third creative period, three broad categories of
land plants had been created. The diffused light would have become quite
strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green
plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every “kind” of
plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others
are not specifically named, but likely were created on this “day.”
Fourth “Day”
“‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a
division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for
seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the
expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And
God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for
dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and
also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16.
Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was
used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a
general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohr',
which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on
“Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. ÞGe 1:Ü3, ’ôr [’ohr],
light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohr' in
ÞGe 1 Üverse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day”
diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of
that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the
cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things
apparently changed.
An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an
earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third
and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket
of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a
requirement for animal life.—Psalm 136:7-9.
Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the
sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for
days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar
months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came
to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they
became later on.—Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.
Fifth “Day”
“‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying
creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’
And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul
that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds,
and every winged flying creature according to its kind.”—Genesis 1:20, 21.
It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters
were to swarm are called “living souls.” This term would also apply to the
“flying creatures [that] fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse.”
And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea
monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.
Sixth “Day”
“‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic
animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’
And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:24.
Thus on the sixth “day,” land animals characterized as wild and domestic
appeared. But this final “day” was not over. One last remarkable “kind” was
to come:
“And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our
likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying
creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and
every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.’ And God proceeded to
create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female
he created them.”—Genesis 1:26, 27.
Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as
some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of
ÞGe Üchapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry
land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were
pertinent to the arrival of humans—Adam the living soul, his garden home,
Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife.—Genesis 2:5-9, 15-18, 21, 22.
The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And
this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued
throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6 × 24), but over many
millenniums of time.
How Did Genesis Know?
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is
drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from
ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has
yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and
the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for
supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.” 3
Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum
stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts
are essentially different.” 4
From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a
scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants
and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their
kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it
indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional
forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution
theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses,
the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation
myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis.
Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who
was there.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the
Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the
events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6)
land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons
beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts,
mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this
order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box,
and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first
try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the
foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere
is not realistic.
However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there,
knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the
appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living
organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical reactions
relying on mere chance create life? Are scientists themselves convinced that
this could happen?
Bud
<7dbgsn$9...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
> > No one doubts that on this major flood plain there were floods. The
myth
> bit
> > is the idea that only one family survived, that they built an ark and
> were
> > in it for a year with pairs and sevens of all animals, etc. How does
> evidence
> > for a flood in an area of Mesopotamia provide evidence for all this?
> >
> > Doug
>
>
> how about africa?
>
>
>
> Flood Legend Supports Bible Account
> THE global Deluge of Noah’s day is a historical fact. Versions of the
> account are found in the oral history of many different civilizations
around
> the world. In the African country of Chad, the Moussaye tribe explains
the
> Flood like this:
Legends and myths are interesting, but where is the physical evidence of a
world wide flood?
di...@my-dejanews.com
dstev...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7datuo$1fg...@Cravenhome.drizzle.com>,
> talk-o...@ediacara.org wrote:
>
> [referring to Jabriol]
>
>
>
> It's pretty clear that Jabriol has a great desire to have the entire world see
> him -- his crosspost fetish proves that.
>
> I don't think it matters much *how* they see him, as long as they do.
Perhaps, but one would think that he would get something right on occaision,
instead he makes a complete fool of himself with every post he writes.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Mark Isaak
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>In the African country of Chad, the Moussaye tribe explains the
>Flood like this:
>mother of this family wanted to prepare a sumptuous meal for her loved ones.
>So she took her mortar and pestle to pound the grain into flour. At that
>time the sky was much closer than it is now. In fact, if you reached up with
>your hand, you could touch it. She pounded the grain with all her strength,
>and the millet she pounded quickly turned to flour. But as she pounded, the
>woman carelessly lifted the pestle too high, and she poked a hole in the
>sky! Immediately, a great quantity of water started falling to the earth.
>This was no ordinary rain. It rained for seven days and seven nights until
>the whole earth was covered with water. As the rain fell, the sky began to
>rise until it ended up where it is now—unreachably high. What a catastrophe
>for humanity! Since then, we have lost the privilege of touching the sky
>with our hands.’
Reference, please? I'm familiar with African myths in which a woman
poking at the low sky with a pestle makes god retreat, and with him the
sky, but that's the first time I've heard a flood associated with the
myth.
Here are all the African flood myths I have been able to find. As you can
see, they are quite a diverse bunch. Only one is remotely Biblical, and
that might simply be a later missionary influence. If anything, African
flood myths support Greek mythology because of their similarity to the
Philemon and Baucis myth. Flood myths from other parts of the world are
no less diverse.
Pygmy:
Chameleon, hearing a strange noise in a tree, cut open its trunk. Water
came out in a great flood that spread all over the earth. The first
human couple emerged with the water. [Parrinder, pp. 46-47]
Kikuyu (Kenya):
A beautiful but mysterious woman agreed to marry a man on the condition that
he never ask about her family. He agreed, and they lived happily together
until it was time for their oldest son's circumcision, and the man asked his
wife why her family couldn't attend the ceremony. With that, the wife
bounced into the air and made a hole seven miles deep when she landed. She
called upon her ancestors, who came as spirits from Mt. Kenya. The spirits
raised a thunder and hailstorm as they came. They brought food, goats,
cattle, and beer with them and, while the people took shelter in caves,
flooded the countryside with beer, turning it into a lake. When the spirits
left, they took the couple and their children with them into Mt. Kenya.
[Abrahams, pp. 336-338]
Southwest Tanzania:
The rivers began flooding. God told two men to go into a ship, taking
with them all sorts of seed and animals. The flood rose, covering the
mountains. Later, to check whether the waters had dried up, the man sent
out a dove, and it came back to the ship. He waited and sent out a hawk,
which did not return because the waters had dried. The men then
disembarked with the animals and seeds. [Gaster, pp. 120-121]
Yoruba (southwest Nigeria):
A god, Ifa, tired of living on earth and went to dwell in the firmament.
Without his assistance, mankind couldn't interpret the desires of the
gods, and one god, in a fit of rage, destroyed nearly everybody in a
great flood. [Kelsen, p. 135]
Basonge:
Zebra married Ngolle Kakesse, granddaughter of God, but broke his
promise not to allow her to work. From her stretched-out legs ran water
which flooded the land, and Ngolle herself drowned. [Kelsen, p. 135]
Ekoi (Nigeria):
Etim 'Ne (Old Person) and his wife Ejaw came to earth from the sky. At
first, there was no water on earth, so Etim 'Ne asked the god Obassi
Osaw for water, and he was given a calabash with seven clear stones.
When Etim 'Ne put a stone in a small hole in the ground, water welled
out and became a broad lake. Later, seven sons and seven daughters were
born to the couple. Etim 'Ne gave stones to the good sons that shared
their food with their father. The children married and had children of
their own. When they all had established new homes, Etim 'Ne sent for
all the children and told them each to take seven stones from the
streams of their parents, and to plant them to create new streams. All
did so except one son who collected a basketful and emptied all his
stones in one place. Waters came, covered his farm, and threatened to
cover the whole earth. Everyone ran to Etim 'Ne, fleeing the flood.
Etim 'Ne prayed to Obassi, who stopped the flood but let a lake remain
covering the farm of the bad son. [Courlander, pp. 267-269]
Mandingo (Ivory Coast):
A charitable man gave away everything he had. The god Ouende rewarded
him with riches, advised him to leave the area, and sent six months of
rain to destroy his selfish neighbors. The descendants of the rich man
became the present human race. [Kelsen, pp. 135-136]
Bakongo (west Zaire):
An old lady, weary and covered with sores, arrived in a town called
Sonanzenzi and sought hospitality, which was denied her at all homes but
the last she came to. When she was well and ready to depart, she told
her friends to pack up and leave with her, as the place was accursed and
would be destroyed by Nzambi. The night after they had left, heavy
rains came and turned the valley into a lake, drowning all the
inhabitants of the town. The sticks of the houses can still be seen
deep in the lake. [Feldmann, p. 50; Kelsen, p. 137]
Bachokwe? (southern Zaire):
A chieftainess named Moena Monenga sought food and shelter in a village.
She was refused, and when she reproached the villagers for their
selfishness, they said, in effect, "What can you do about it"? So she
began a slow incantation, and on the last long note, the whole village
sank into the ground, and water flowed into the depression, forming what
is now Lake Dilolo. When the village's chieftain returned from the hunt
and saw what had happened to his family, he drowned himself in the lake.
[Vitaliano, pp. 164-165]
Lower Congo:
The sun once met the moon and threw mud at it, making it dimmer. There
was a flood when this happened. Men put their milk stick behind them
and were turned into monkeys. The present race of men is a recent
creation. [Fauconnet, p. 481]
Komililo Nandi:
Ilet, the spirit of lightning, came to live, in human form, in a cave
high on the mountain named Tinderet. When he did so, it rained
incessantly and killed most of the hunters living in the forest below.
Some hunters, searching for the cause of the rain, found him and wounded
him with poison arrows. Ilet fled and died in a neighboring country.
When he died, the rain stopped. [Kelsen, p. 137]
Cameroon:
A girl let a goat eat some of her flour, and in return for the kindness,
the goat told her there will be a flood. Only she and her brother
escaped. After the flood, they couldn't find mates. The goat
reappeared and said they could marry themselves, but they would have to
put a clay pot with a broken bottom on their roof to signify that they
are relatives. [Kahler-Meyer, pp. 251-252]
Kwaya (Lake Victoria):
A man and his wife had a pot which never ran out of water. They told
their daughter-in-law only never to touch it, but she grew curious and
touched it. It shattered, and the resulting flood drowned everything.
[Kahler-Meyer, pp. 253-254]
!Kung:
None. The very idea is ludicrous.
Full references, along with many more flood myths from around the world,
can be found at http://www.best.com/~atta/floods.htm.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Boikat
di...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article <7dbsib$2kn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <7db76r$eno$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> dstev...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <7datuo$1fg...@Cravenhome.drizzle.com>,
> > talk-o...@ediacara.org wrote:
> >
> > [referring to Jabriol]
> >
> > > You must have some great desire to have the entire world see you as a
fool
> >
> > You're half right.
> >
> > It's pretty clear that Jabriol has a great desire to have the entire
world see
> > him -- his crosspost fetish proves that.
> >
> > I don't think it matters much *how* they see him, as long as they do.
>
> Perhaps, but one would think that he would get something right on
occaision,
> instead he makes a complete fool of himself with every post he writes.
Actually, recently he *has* made some truthful statements that even *we*
would agree with, such as "The Bible is not a science book."
It's true! (I had to do a triple-take too!)
Boikat
maff91
[snip]
So who cares about your thrash cult belief?
jw-general.html
Jehovah's Witnesses in General = By Walter Smith: On the
subject of the Jehovah's Witnesses / Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society being misleading/dishonest with some of their quotes, Mark
Sornson writ....
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-general.html
Jehovah's Witnesses and Evolution
The Jehovah's Witness _Life_ book dismisses the evidence for
human evolution with a few sweeping generalities. This article shows
in detail the gross misrepresentation of evidence and the selective
misuse of quotations and references.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-evolution.html
Review of JW book, _Life_, by a former Witness
The Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a form of old-earth creationism,
which is expounded in their definitive anti-evolution book, _Life: How
Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?_. A brief synopsis of the
arguments in the main chapters about evolution is given.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html
jw-dishonesty.html
Dishonesty of Jehovah's Witnesses = By
C J Silverio: This book [Life: How did it get here? is the straw that
broke the JW's ......
Mike Davis
>> > We know there was no Exodus from Egypt.
>>
>> evidence please
By my limited understanding, there was indeed a departure from Egypt
by the Hebrew working caste. However, wasn't it at the invitation of
the Egyptian government due to an exteded famine that was rocking the
region at the time? Also, Ramses the great was the generally presumed
Pharoah during this time-- and rather then drowning he lived to be 90+
years old.
So both of you are correct?
Doug Weller
jab...@cris.com said...
>
> Interestingly, ancient accounts telling of a global flood can be found all
> around the world. Native civilizations of the Americas as well as Aborigines
> of Australia all have stories about it. The details may differ, but most
> accounts contain the thought that the earth was covered by water and only a
> few people survived in a man-made vessel.
>
common and can be extremely devastating. None of them disprove the geological
evidence that there was no global flood.
Jim Vail
This is not a bible study group and you should
take your point of view over there. But then you
would have nothing to talk about would you? The
only reason you hang on here is to push your point
of view. No one is interested, and if they were
they aren't reading postings in this group. Please
stop debating the value of the bible and its
"truth". The bible has been re-written so many
times to fit the going public opinion it has lost
what ever meaning it once held for people long
ago. I would suggest you read a fine book entitled
"God is Red" by Vine Deloria Jr. and read
something that has a real point not lost in some
forgotten era of the burning bush and parting
waters. PLEASE!
Adam
"Bud" <nos...@nospamxxx.net> wrote:
> Hey, some people can only get an erection/achieve organism after being
> publicly humiliated or chastised. Maybe Jabriol is one of them.
I don't think any creationists will ever acheive organism, it sounds a bit too
Darwinian to me %)
Adam Holman
Substitute @hotmail.com to email
Dick C.
>What Does Genesis Say?
Nothing factual.
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
Xalan
Jabriol wrote in message <7dbgsn$9...@journal.concentric.net>...
|
|how about africa?
|
|
|
|Flood Legend Supports Bible Account
|THE global Deluge of Noah’s day is a historical fact. Versions of the
|account are found in the oral history of many different civilizations
around
|Flood like this:
|‘Once upon a time, in a faraway place, there lived a family. One day, the
|mother of this family wanted to prepare a sumptuous meal for her loved
ones.
|So she took her mortar and pestle to pound the grain into flour. At that
|time the sky was much closer than it is now. In fact, if you reached up
with
|your hand, you could touch it. She pounded the grain with all her strength,
|and the millet she pounded quickly turned to flour. But as she pounded, the
|woman carelessly lifted the pestle too high, and she poked a hole in the
|sky! Immediately, a great quantity of water started falling to the earth.
|This was no ordinary rain. It rained for seven days and seven nights until
|the whole earth was covered with water. As the rain fell, the sky began to
|rise until it ended up where it is now—unreachably high. What a catastrophe
|for humanity! Since then, we have lost the privilege of touching the sky
|with our hands.’
|around the world. Native civilizations of the Americas as well as
Aborigines
|of Australia all have stories about it. The details may differ, but most
|accounts contain the thought that the earth was covered by water and only a
|theme adds support to the fact that a worldwide Deluge did occur, as
|reported in the Bible.—Genesis 7:11-20.
What you have to remember is what these people understood by the whole
world. If I have only lived on a river plains and one day it flooded as far
as I can see. I would probably say that the whole world had flooded. I would
repeat this story and it would spread and be remembered. However just
because I believed that the whole world had flooded I would not be correct.
Another problem you forgot to mention is all the different dates for this
flood having occurred. But then inconsistencies have never bothered xians,
how else could they keep believing in the bible.
--
Xalan
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
E-EAC (UK) Clean Up Squad (24Hour Service)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
A little girl called Silé Javotte
Said 'look at the lovely presents I've got'
While a little girl in Biafra said
'Oh what a lovely slice of bread' .....Spike Milligan
"Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Visit me: http://ww3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/
ICQ me: 12811297
Bud
<7dd2hh$2mj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <01be7622$7fb0a040$ee56...@bwagner.ionet.net>,
> "Bud" <nos...@nospamxxx.net> wrote:
> > Hey, some people can only get an erection/achieve organism after being
> > publicly humiliated or chastised. Maybe Jabriol is one of them.
>
> I don't think any creationists will ever acheive organism, it sounds a
bit too
> Darwinian to me %)
That makes sense -- it would certainly go a long way to expalin the
bitterness and disappointment I sense in so many creationists.
Cowboy
>
> > > The Bible is not a science manual. If you closesly at the description
>of
> > > time period, of different creation events, they are very close to how
> > > scientist believe things appeared on the planet.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry but I don't buy that. At least the primitive Isrealites could
> > have gotten the order right. Light (supposedly the big bang) was
> > after the earth already existed, plants were created before the sun,
> > etc...
> >
> > Most likely the Genesis myth was derived from much older creation
> > myths such as "Enuma Elish" where the creation of each generation
> > of gods matches what was created on a particular day in Genesis.
>
>
>What Does Genesis Say?
>
><SNIPPED>
Very weell thought out article. However, a brief study of biblical
Hebrew will topple the "what is the definition of day" arguement you
have put forth. If you are truly searching for an answer to this,
rather than capitalizing on the imprecise nature of english (as in the
definition of day), you will find that the manner in which the Hebrew
word is used in Genesis 1 would be very difficult, without
extrapolating, to define as anything other than a literal day.
GB
MCSE, MVP
****************************************************
Think outside of the box!
****************************************************
Cowboy
Do you not accept even the portions of Genesis, etc. that appear in
history books? If so, then you are closed minded.
Bud
> On 25 Mar 1999 09:17:04 -0500, foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
>
> >In article <7dbgtc$9...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com wrote:
> >
> >>What Does Genesis Say?
> >
> >Nothing factual.
> >
> >
>
> history books? If so, then you are closed minded.
>
portion of the book of Genesis? And before you say the "ark," you must
know that there have been numerous "claims" (located in at least a dozen
different places) but none that have withstood any real scutiny. You will
need to prove references to peer-reviewed sources to back up any claims.
Boikat
Cowboy <gbw...@home.com> wrote in article <36faecbb.100473072@news>...
[snip]
>
> ****************************************************
> Think outside of the box!
> ****************************************************
Lets put that to the test. I, as an 'evolutionist", am willing to admit
that I am wrong, and an all powereful God created everything around 6000
years ago via Devine acts. (Just present the verifiable evidence.)
Are you willing to admit that the Bible could be wrong, (Creationism of the
Young Earth Kind) and that the universe, earth, and life are ancient, and
the result of natural processes?
Boikat
Elf Sternberg
>Do you not accept even the portions of Genesis, etc. that appear in
>history books? If so, then you are closed minded.
What portions are those?
>Think outside of the box!
Think outside of the book.
Jabriol
> Very weell thought out article. However, a brief study of biblical
> Hebrew will topple the "what is the definition of day" arguement you
> have put forth. If you are truly searching for an answer to this,
> rather than capitalizing on the imprecise nature of english (as in the
> definition of day), you will find that the manner in which the Hebrew
> word is used in Genesis 1 would be very difficult, without
> extrapolating, to define as anything other than a literal day.
true, very difficult in deed, the hebrew word used here is Yolm.
it could be a literal day, as well as an indefinte begining of a time period
and the end of another. the way genesis chapter one is written, it seems to
be used in dual term as well to demostrate a beging of a certain time period
and the end of a time period. we do this in the spanish language often
enough. so one day may be millions, or a short as a literal day.
Cowboy
>
>
>Cowboy <gbw...@home.com> wrote in article <36faecbb.100473072@news>...
>
>[snip]
>>
>> ****************************************************
>> Think outside of the box!
>> ****************************************************
>
>Lets put that to the test. I, as an 'evolutionist", am willing to admit
>that I am wrong, and an all powereful God created everything around 6000
>years ago via Devine acts. (Just present the verifiable evidence.)
>
>Are you willing to admit that the Bible could be wrong, (Creationism of the
>Young Earth Kind) and that the universe, earth, and life are ancient, and
>the result of natural processes?
>
>Boikat
>
Boikat:
Certainly. In fact, I am willing to denounce God if someone can come
up with some form of absolute proof that He does not exist.
Since you snipped all of my comments, I would assume that you wish to
portray me as some brainless Christian who babbled about the wrath of
God against ... etc. blah! blah! blah! In doing that, you discounted
the idea that I may have actually used my brain to come to my beliefs.
Thus, I leave it to you to prove that my God is a farce. In doing so,
you will undoubtable have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
evolution is truth and not God.
While this may sound like I am baiting, that is not my intention at
all. If it can be summarily proven that God is a farce, then I have no
reason believing in fairy tales.
In this manner, there is absolutely no risk to me whatsoever. Either
you prove God exists or I accept your views. I am certain that you
will not find this proof, but I welcome your efforts, for I am
committed to the truth and not just my view of the truth.
GB
MCSE, MVP
****************************************************
Think outside of the box!
****************************************************
Cowboy
However, in context the word is translated to mean a literal day how
many times in the Old Testament? How many times does it mean something
other than a day? If you wish you can discount outside of the
references in Genesis 1. It is not just the word (singular) that is
important in translation, it is the context.
Jeff
doubt and then I will believe in your God.
>Certainly. In fact, I am willing to denounce God if someone can come
>up with some form of absolute proof that He does not exist.
>
>Since you snipped all of my comments, I would assume that you wish to
>portray me as some brainless Christian who babbled about the wrath of
>God against ... etc. blah! blah! blah! In doing that, you discounted
>the idea that I may have actually used my brain to come to my beliefs.
>
>Thus, I leave it to you to prove that my God is a farce. In doing so,
>you will undoubtable have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
>evolution is truth and not God.
>
>While this may sound like I am baiting, that is not my intention at
>all. If it can be summarily proven that God is a farce, then I have no
>reason believing in fairy tales.
>
>In this manner, there is absolutely no risk to me whatsoever. Either
>you prove God exists or I accept your views. I am certain that you
>will not find this proof, but I welcome your efforts, for I am
>committed to the truth and not just my view of the truth.
>
mar...@rocketmail.com
> jab...@cris.com said...
> >
> > Interestingly, ancient accounts telling of a global flood can be found all
> > around the world. Native civilizations of the Americas as well as Aborigines
> > of Australia all have stories about it. The details may differ, but most
> > accounts contain the thought that the earth was covered by water and only a
> > few people survived in a man-made vessel.
> >
> common and can be extremely devastating. None of them disprove the geological
> evidence that there was no global flood.
>
> Doug
> --
What curious Christian reasoning is it that, because the flood myth is
prevalent in a wide range of belief systems, it should be used to
substantiate only the Christian god? It makes just as much sense for, say, an
Aborigine to claim that, because their flood story is found in the Bible and
elsewhere, it proves that the Aboriginal beliefs are true.
Martlet
Doug Weller
NoSPaMM...@home.comNoSPaMM said...
> On 25 Mar 1999 21:44:04 -0500, "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Cowboy <gbw...@home.com> wrote in article <36faecbb.100473072@news>...
> >
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> Think outside of the box!
> >> ****************************************************
> >
> >that I am wrong, and an all powereful God created everything around 6000
> >years ago via Devine acts. (Just present the verifiable evidence.)
> >
> >Are you willing to admit that the Bible could be wrong, (Creationism of the
> >Young Earth Kind) and that the universe, earth, and life are ancient, and
> >the result of natural processes?
> >
> >Boikat
> >
>
> Boikat:
>
> up with some form of absolute proof that He does not exist.
Relax, no one is asking you to. Let's clarify this. Are you saying that unless
someone can prove that the supernatural entity you believe in is nonexistent
that you will accept no proof for evolution and a several billion year old
earth, or are these separate questions for you?
** Stormy Nite **
Cowboy <gbw...@home.com> wrote in article <36faed99.100695292@news>...
: Do you not accept even the portions of Genesis, etc. that appear in
: history books? If so, then you are closed minded.
: ===================================
I NEVER saw any portion of the Bible in History books unless they were
religious books.
--
Carol....
"NO husband was ever killed while doing the dishes."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
Cowboy
>My God can beat up your God. Prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a
>doubt and then I will believe in your God.
>
><SNIPPED - My original comment>
This was not meant to be a fight, but rather a reasonable request. I
am asked to believe that my religion is a myth based on reasoning
extrapolated from assumptions. And, I am discounted as being emotional
and not reasoning simply because I won't follow the status quo and
jump to the other side. However, I am reasoning and would like some
irrefutable proof to the notion that my views are wrong.
Since most of the answers I receive are snide at best, why should I
become a profundant of evolution?
GB
MCSE, MVP
Dick C.
>On 25 Mar 1999 09:17:04 -0500, foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
>
>>In article <7dbgtc$9...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com wrote:
>>
>>>What Does Genesis Say?
>>
>>Nothing factual.
>Do you not accept even the portions of Genesis, etc. that appear in
>history books? If so, then you are closed minded.
>
What portions are those?
Adam
NoSPaMM...@home.comNoSPaMM wrote:
> This was not meant to be a fight, but rather a reasonable request. I
> am asked to believe that my religion is a myth based on reasoning
> extrapolated from assumptions. And, I am discounted as being emotional
> and not reasoning simply because I won't follow the status quo and
> jump to the other side. However, I am reasoning and would like some
> irrefutable proof to the notion that my views are wrong.
>
> Since most of the answers I receive are snide at best, why should I
> become a profundant of evolution?
Surely it is just a little irrational to believe in something because it
hasn't been proved not to exist. If this is part of your reasoning for being
Christian, why isn't it part of your reasoning for being muslim, or any other
religion? There has been a helluva lot more 'proof' for evolution in the last
two hundred years than there has been for the existence of a god or gods in
the last two thousand.
I have not posted this to alt.archaeology as it doesn't belong there.
Adam Holman
Substitute @hotmail.com to email
"I'm not a statistician either, but that won't stop me expressing my
ignorance confidently" Tony Griffin.
Katherine Griffis
wrote:
>On 26 Mar 1999 00:32:58 -0500, boy...@wehi.EDU.AU (Jeff) wrote:
>
>>My God can beat up your God. Prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a
>>doubt and then I will believe in your God.
>>
>><SNIPPED - My original comment>
>
>This was not meant to be a fight, but rather a reasonable request. I
>am asked to believe that my religion is a myth based on reasoning
>extrapolated from assumptions. And, I am discounted as being emotional
>and not reasoning simply because I won't follow the status quo and
>jump to the other side. However, I am reasoning and would like some
>irrefutable proof to the notion that my views are wrong.
>
>Since most of the answers I receive are snide at best, why should I
>become a profundant of evolution?
As all religion is a matter of faith, how can one "prove" faith wrong?
It is a matter of perception that Boikat does not adhere to the same
views of the world as yourself, nor you of his. IMO, there is not
"right or wrong" about this belief system of either of you.
However, it is 2 statements of yours -- not about your faith -- which
has garnered the questions. You originally put forth the argument that
one should accept the literal truth of Genesis as a historical document.
You have been asked to provide support for the statement "...portions of
Genesis, etc. that appear in history books?" AFAIK, you have not
answered that question.
Your other statement appears to be an argument for the Hebrew word for
"day" being literally a 24-hour period, saying "... you will find that
the manner in which the Hebrew word is used in Genesis 1 would be very
difficult, without extrapolating, to define as anything other than a
literal day."
FWIW, I know that most OT/Pentateuch and ANE literary scholars don't
believe that "day" meant a 24-hour period, in this context. This has
support with other phrases of similar construction within the Bible
itself. For example, the phrase "forty days/years" means, in an ANE
literary construct, a "very long time." There are, of course, other
references within both the Old and New Testaments to long periods of
time being rendered to a "day" analogy, such as these two examples:
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone
by, or like a watch in the night." Psalms 90:4 (English-NIV)
or similarly
"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night." Psalms 90:4 (English-RSV)
in the New Testament, it is also stated:
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is
like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." 2 Peter
3:8 (English-NIV)
or the RSV:
"But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is
as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8
(English-RSV)
Gerhard von Rad, in his book, _Genesis: A Commentary_ (Rev. Edition),
(Westminister/Philadelphia, 1972) pointed out that the Genesis 1:3-5
account of the "first day" is a product of the Priestly version of the
story, which was written very late, after 538 BCE, and is a form of
literature utilized by the post-Babylonian Exile priestly class in
setting dogma of God as the supreme deity for the Judaic faith. Written
in an almost 'codified' fashion, Genesis 1:3-5 is also a means of
dividing creation into 6 separate acts [referred to as 'days'] in an
effort to emphasize the religious/cultic significance of the Sabbath as
a "divine creation" as the 'day of rest.' {see also the comments along
this same line in the Catholic New American Bible}.
After noting that creation itself is a reflection of God's will upon the
cosmos, and not merely an extension of divine presence in the temporal
plane, von Rad notes:
"Thus, the accent lies, not on the verbal naming, but in the 'calling
into and fixing of the existence of creation.'* The precise translation,
therefore, is 'And God _appointed_ the light as day...' But in the
ancient Oriental view the act of giving a name meant, above all, the
exercise of sovereign right (cf. II Kings 23:34; 24:17). Thus the
naming of this and all subsequent creative works once more expresses
graphically God's claim of lordship over the creatures. The day here
appears to be reckoned from morning to morning, in strange contrast to
its reckoning in cultic law [which states a day begins at sunset -
KGG]." [p. 53]
von Rad's note: * quoted from August Dillman, _Die Genesis_, (S.
Hirzel/Leipzig, 1892)
So, when one argues for the "literal interpretation" of the word 'day',
for example, one needs to know the historical context in which the
passage was written, its purpose, and the surrounding literary parallels
which appear in other ANE cultures (in this case, drawing heavily on
Babylonian, and possibly Egyptian, religious literature).
Regards --
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1692/index.html
Reading mail from me in a Usenet group does not
grant you the right to send me unsolicited commercial e-mail.
All senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail will be
reported to their postmasters as Usenet abusers.
agent seven
NoSPaMM...@home.comNoSPaMM wrote:
> Certainly. In fact, I am willing to denounce God if someone can come
> up with some form of absolute proof that He does not exist.
The burden of proof does not lie with those who don't believe in what cannot
be proven. It lies with those who do.
Here is an excerpt for you from Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World." You
should appreciate what Carl is trying to say here:
<begin quote>
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."
Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want
to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories
of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!"
"Show me," you say, and I lead you to my garage.
You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle - but no
dragon. "Where's the dragon?" you ask. "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving
vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." You propose
spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." Then you'll use an
infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible
fire is also heatless," I say. You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her
visible. "Good idea, except she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't
stick!"
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special
explanation of why it won't work.
Now what is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon
who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove
my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what
does it mean to say that my dragon exists? You're inability to invalidate my
hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that
cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless,
whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of
wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of
evidence, on my say-so. <end quote>
A7
"This Universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on
government contract" - Zeb
Boikat
Cowboy <NoSPaMM...@home.comNoSPaMM> wrote in article
<36fb1338.110326360@news>...
> On 25 Mar 1999 21:44:04 -0500, "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Cowboy <gbw...@home.com> wrote in article <36faecbb.100473072@news>...
> >
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> ****************************************************
> >> Think outside of the box!
> >> ****************************************************
> >
> >Lets put that to the test. I, as an 'evolutionist", am willing to admit
> >that I am wrong, and an all powereful God created everything around 6000
> >years ago via Devine acts. (Just present the verifiable evidence.)
> >
> >Are you willing to admit that the Bible could be wrong, (Creationism of
the
> >Young Earth Kind) and that the universe, earth, and life are ancient,
and
> >the result of natural processes?
> >
> >Boikat
> >
>
> Boikat:
>
> Certainly. In fact, I am willing to denounce God if someone can come
> up with some form of absolute proof that He does not exist.
Proving a negative is not the piint.
>
> Since you snipped all of my comments, I would assume that you wish to
> portray me as some brainless Christian who babbled about the wrath of
> God against ... etc. blah! blah! blah! In doing that, you discounted
> the idea that I may have actually used my brain to come to my beliefs.
Nope. Not at all. Just seeing if you were karl in "sheeps clothing"
because of the sig line.
>
> Thus, I leave it to you to prove that my God is a farce. In doing so,
> you will undoubtable have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
> evolution is truth and not God.
False dichotomy. Evolution could have been Gods way of "creating", if
there is a God.
>
> While this may sound like I am baiting, that is not my intention at
> all. If it can be summarily proven that God is a farce, then I have no
> reason believing in fairy tales.
It is not so much God that is in question, so much as the 'fairy tales"
that tell of a single world wide flood that killed everything except that
which was stuffed into a large wooden boat, that the universe was created
to look old for some reason, and so on.
>
> In this manner, there is absolutely no risk to me whatsoever. Either
> you prove God exists or I accept your views. I am certain that you
> will not find this proof, but I welcome your efforts, for I am
> committed to the truth and not just my view of the truth.
The truth is, it is impossible to disprove the existance of God. It is
possible to disprove the litteral creation myth of a 6000 year old Earth or
a world wide flood that supposedly took place aroung 4700 years ago.
Unless you rely on miracles, in which your beliefs are based upon "poof"
and belief which is immune to interpretation of evidence, since any
conflicting evidence can be dismissed as a Devine 'trick" to fool anyone.
As I said, the main reasion I asked was to see if you were a karl sock
puppet. (Otherwise, you can believe what you will. That is your right.)
Boikat
Cowboy
Weller) wrote:
><SNIP>
>
>> Certainly. In fact, I am willing to denounce God if someone can come
>> up with some form of absolute proof that He does not exist.
>
>Relax, no one is asking you to. Let's clarify this. Are you saying that unless
>someone can prove that the supernatural entity you believe in is nonexistent
>that you will accept no proof for evolution and a several billion year old
>earth, or are these separate questions for you?
>
>Doug
>--
> Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
> Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
> Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
>
Doug:
From the manner in which you asked the question, it can be suggested
that you have discounted me for another one of those "narrow minded,
ignorant, non-reasoning, mythology-believing Christians." I am going
to dispell this myth with a little apology.
****************************************************************
I certainly accept microevolution, the idea that you can make new
breeds of animals by cross-breeding, in fact, it would ignorant or
stupid to denounce a postulate that can be proven in a few generations
of animal husbandry. I do not, however, believe in macroevolution,
since it has not been proven but extrapolated.
Billions of years old:
As far as billions of years are concerned, the primary indicators are
inaccurate tests. The argument has been put forth that even though
these tests are inaccurate, what is a couple of million years.
To answer this arguement, I postulate the food scale theory. To
complete the experiment, go out and buy a food scale. These
inexpensive items are used to weigh a couple of pounds of food and can
be accurate down to a portion of an ounce. In addition to the food
scale, purchase a can of paint, a mini-sledge and a gallon of milk.
Now weight them.
The result is that you cannot accurately determine the weight of the
milk. However, you can extrapolate. Here is how. Find an item that is
within the weight limit and drop it on the scale from a height. At a
certain height, the scale will break when the item hits it. Repeat
this with an identical scale and your items. The heavier item will
break the scale at a lower weight due to it needing less velocity to
break the scale. Now, you can extrapolate the weight from the
experiment.
The result is a completely inaccurate guestimate of weight barring
some strange coincidence. Now, this whole experiment sounds pretty
stupid since you can always go out and buy a bigger scale and
accurately weigh the items. For the purpose of the argument, keep the
food scale in mind.
With the age of the earth, you have to extrapolate. You take a known
quantity (something you saw happen or die, etc.) and measure it. From
that measurement you set your scale. You then verify it against other
recent events that you know the time scale. You find out that it is x%
inaccurate, but you still use it to extrapolate against items that are
much older.
The date, you say is x billion + or - your error percentage. You
extrapolate that all of your rules, observed for a short time, have
always been the same and that cataclysmic events could not have any
bearing on the age of the items.
The theory of eveolution:
The theory of evolution is also based on an extrapolation. The theory
is that microeveolution (a known quantity) can be extrapolated to
macroevolution if there is enough time. (say billions of years) But,
when you deal with complex systems, you create certain holes in the
theory. There are some complex organs that require hundreds of
evolutionary changes to even function. Of course, the answer to this
"problem" has been new variations on the evolutionary theory like
punctuated equilibrium.
Punctuated equilibrium, in case you are not familiar, is when an
organism makes a macroevolutionary jump in one generation. A snake
gives birth to a bird (the jump does not have to be quite as large,
but the lung structure of reptiles and birds has long been an
obstacle). Now, in order to stick this huge, highly improbably
accident has to happen. Not just once, but at least twice. And, in a
world where few young survive, these two have to beat the odds and
both have to grow old enough to propogate.
A failure at any point means that the accident has to happen again and
again until the new creature survives long enough to establish a
species.
Probability theory:
In experimentation, probabilities are calculated for items that cannot
be quantified completely. Let's look at the probability of
Christianity versus evolution.
To move from ooze to man, how many accidents (coincidences) need to
happen? And, how many of these coincidences need to be repeated
numerous times to "get it right". The probability of this happening
has been said to be euivalent to hitting a spot 1cm in diameter on a
dartboard on the other side of the universe. I have also heard that
evolution has about the same probability as a tornado going through a
junkyard and assembling a completely functional 747.
How much faith does it take to believe in that kind of probability?
The assumption usually taken is that we Christians are ignorant,
unreasoning, stupid or some combination of the above. It is also said
that we are narrow minded and unwilling to accept other viewpoints. I
resent this viewpoint.
It is unfortunate that much of the defense of Christianity is
subjective. Answered prayers are often cited as reasons to believe.
Certainly some, if not all, can be written off as positive expectancy
or coincidence. But, using probability, the odds against all of these
answered prayers being coincidence is diminished with each answered
prayer. And, if even one of these prayers can be shown to be a
miracle, then something supernatural exists.
If I have made myself plain enough, I have reasoned this one out and
have not blindly jumped into some form of mythology to make myself
happy. As each prophecy comes to pass and each prayer is answered, my
resolve is strengthened. And yet, I am being asked by some to take
away this faith that becomes more and more probable with each event
and throw it away on something that requires far more faith. What
would be the reason:
1. Because my world is subjective rather than objective. Since the
objectivity of the evolutionary track is based on extrapolation and
assumptions, is it really that objective.
2. Because the status quo is to accept what I am being told? Wouldn't
that be ignorant.
If find so many people asking me to thoroughly examine evolution with
the assumption that I will eventually become convinced that I am being
foolish. Yet, these same people are unwilling to really give
Christianity a chance. In the end, I am called narrow-minded, despite
the fact I have given much thought to my beliefs.
To answer your question: I believe that evolution and billions of
years are tied together, since evolution requires a lot of time. In
this respect, they are linked together. I do not, however, believe
that billions of years proves evolution. There is not necessessarily a
reciprocal relationship between the two. In that respect, they are
separate issues.
Mattheq
> In this manner, there is absolutely no risk to me whatsoever. Either
> you prove God exists or I accept your views. I am certain that you
> will not find this proof, but I welcome your efforts, for I am
> committed to the truth and not just my view of the truth.
So, if he can't prove god exists, you'll believe in evolution? Shouldn't
you be trying to prove god exists, if you're the christian (burden of proof,
positive claimant etc. etc.)?
Mattheq
--
"And then, one Thursday nearly two thousand years after one man had been
nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a
change..." http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/9079/ Drop in!
IA i^8 His Holiness, Pope Mattheq I
walksalone
wrote:
>On 25 Mar 1999 21:44:04 -0500, "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Cowboy <gbw...@home.com> wrote in article <36faecbb.100473072@news>...
>>[snip]
>>> Think outside of the box!
>>Lets put that to the test. I, as an 'evolutionist", am willing to admit
>>that I am wrong, and an all powereful God created everything around 6000
>>years ago via Devine acts. (Just present the verifiable evidence.)
>>Are you willing to admit that the Bible could be wrong, (Creationism of the
>>Young Earth Kind) and that the universe, earth, and life are ancient, and
>>the result of natural processes?
>>Boikat
Your'e safe.
>Boikat:
>Certainly. In fact, I am willing to denounce God if someone can come
>up with some form of absolute proof that He does not exist.
And how do you propose to dis-prove the invisible imaginary? Talk
about loading the dice. Boikat gave to a 50-50 chance, you want to
give him a 0-100 chance. Talk about loading the dice.
>Since you snipped all of my comments, I would assume that you wish to
>portray me as some brainless Christian who babbled about the wrath of
Well, no, you do a good job of that without any help from others.
>God against ... etc. blah! blah! blah! In doing that, you discounted
>the idea that I may have actually used my brain to come to my beliefs.
No, just pointed out that the likely hood of you making any reasonable
offer is minimal. You verified that real nice.
>Thus, I leave it to you to prove that my God is a farce. In doing so,
You claim, your proof. Boikat didn't say anything about a god not
existing, you are claiming it does. But you know that, for you've
already danced that dance & made the same claims before, & likel;y
will again.
>you will undoubtable have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
>evolution is truth and not God.
No way to prove the unprovable god, so you cover your ass in self
righteous pomposity. Doesn't fly to a thinking person.
>While this may sound like I am baiting, that is not my intention at
>all. If it can be summarily proven that God is a farce, then I have no
>reason believing in fairy tales.
Well, do the easy thing. Being there is no way to prove to a believer
anything negative about it's god construct, prove the positive. Prove
there is a god, which you claim. Leave the straw men out of the
conversation.
>In this manner, there is absolutely no risk to me whatsoever. Either
>you prove God exists or I accept your views. I am certain that you
There never was any risk, for you never meant to back your claim.
Sophistry.
>will not find this proof, but I welcome your efforts, for I am
>committed to the truth and not just my view of the truth.
Bullshit.
>GB
>MCSE, MVP
Most valueless player?
Do not stand by this grave & weep,
No one's here, I do not sleep.
For I am the thousand winds that blow,
& the diamond glint on the snow.
I am the sun on ripened grain,
The soft & gentle autumn rain.
When you wake in the mornings hush,
I am the swift uprising rush.
Of the quiet birds in circling flight,
The timeless stars that shines at night.
So, do not stand by this grave & cry,
No one's dead, I did not die.
Author unknown walksalone over at baawa org inization
walksalone
>On 25 Mar 1999 09:17:04 -0500, foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
>>In article <7dbgtc$9...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com wrote:
>>>What Does Genesis Say?
>>Nothing factual.
>>Dick, Atheist #1349
>>email: dic...@uswest.net
>>Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
>Do you not accept even the portions of Genesis, etc. that appear in
>history books? If so, then you are closed minded.
One more time, which history books & what supporting documentation
that is not a biblical. brand immaterial, reference. Do you give up,
you should before you embarrass yourself further.
>GB
>MCSE, MVP
>Think outside of the box!
You v'e done that, personally I prefer to think for myself, no box
required.
Jeff
exclusive. What makes you think that if evolution happened then GOD does
not exist? Why do you believe in GOD? My thoughts were that it was very
much concerned wtih the why we are here and where we are going not the
underlying mechanisms of how we got here. How are those reasons affected by
accepting scientific evidence? Proof of evolution or conclusive proof that
some undefined entity no-longer or never did exist would not have any
bearing on truth of evolution or any other postition.
If you are truly reasoning and interested then throw out your church
bulletins as sources of information and read up on what evolution, geology,
astronomy other fields of science actually say. The talk.origins FAQs are a
good start.
>>My God can beat up your God. Prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a
>>doubt and then I will believe in your God.
Jabriol
> However, in context the word is translated to mean a literal day how
> many times in the Old Testament? How many times does it mean something
> other than a day? If you wish you can discount outside of the
> references in Genesis 1. It is not just the word (singular) that is
> important in translation, it is the context.
*** it-1 592 Day ***
DAY
Jehovah God introduced this fundamental division of time on the first “day”
of the period during which he prepared the earth for mankind, when diffused
light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, thus causing the
moisture-covered earth to experience its first day and night as it rotated
on its axis through the light of the sun. “God brought about a division
between the light and the darkness. And God began calling the light Day, but
the darkness he called Night.” (Ge 1:4, 5) Here the word “Day” refers to the
daylight hours in contrast with the nighttime. However, the record
thereafter goes on to use the word “day” to refer to other units of time of
varying length. In both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures, the word “day”
(Heb., yohm; Gr., he·me'ra) is used in a literal and in a figurative or even
symbolic sense.
Sometimes the word “day” is used to indicate a measure of distance, as in
the expressions “a day’s journey” and “a sabbath day’s journey.”-Nu 11:31;
Ac 1:12;