Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

"much further back" is 3000 years or so. A long time, but in the time frames we are discussing completely irrelevant. There is absolutely no evidence that humans made alcohol earlier than around 10,000 BC. The beverages that appeared at that time were jiu in China (made from rice and honey and flavored with fruit) and beer with wild grape wine following shortly thereafter. Alcohol made from other types of fruits took much longer to appear. That still leaves you with 2 million odd years between when you claim a human drank alcohol and its invention. 

fermented fruit is not "making alcohol" it's eating bad fruit that has in turn created alcohol.  There are evidences of these occurances and that people put 2 and 2 together and realized that if you let certain fruits sit for a long time, you can get a funny high off of them.  

The Bible doesn't say Noah "ate bad fruit", it says he became a "man of the soil" and "planted a vineyard" then relates a story of one night getting drunk drinking wine and passing out naked in his tent. You can get alcohol from simply eating fermented fruit, but not a lot. With modern technology/techniques- adding additional yeast and sugar and maintaining perfect temperature conditions- it takes about 2.5 pounds of grapes to get one bottle of wine. Which is about 400-700 grapes. You try eating that many grapes in a single sitting. (Or even half that many, I know not everyone can polish off a bottle of wine like I can.) With just the natural yeast, natural sugar and imperfect temperature conditions, you will have a much lower yield and need far more grapes to get the equivalent amount of alcohol. 

There is evidence that our ancestors developed the ability to metabolize ethanol as early as 10 million years ago, an adaptation that allowed for more life on the ground rather than trees as it became less necessary to pick fresh fruit. It is believed at the time that most primates could not metabolize ethanol. Most primates that are primarily tree dwelling today do not share the enzyme that breaks down ethanol, while those that are often ground dwelling do. The amount of ethanol you get from eating old fruit at the base of a tree is nowhere near enough to get you drunk. You get drunk when you drink more than your body can metabolize efficiently. 

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/348385/description/Origins_of_alcohol_consumption_traced_to_ape_ancestor

It is not an accident that making alcohol was discovered around the same time as farming. When you farm, you have the obvious problem of not being able to consume everything at once. This led to trying to discover ways to store food long term. It is easy to observe that food lasts longer in cool dark places than it does in the sun. People started storing large amounts of grains and fruit in cool dark places and sometimes it fermented and made alcohol. Until you are regularly storing large amounts, you are never going to figure out how drunk alcohol can make you. You will never get enough alcohol to get drunk. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Also, there isn't really much of any evidences of much happening around or long before 10,000 BC.  I get that you're convinced due to the fact that we have no evidences of ways of getting drunk before then that people just couldn't get drunk, but I find it hard to believe people didn't find some way of getting drunk without making drinks.  Ancient cultures untouched by outside humanity have been found to have ways of getting high and/or drunk, why would ancient Biblical cultures be any different?

Whether you find it hard to believe or not is irrelevant. We have physical evidence of what people ate and drank. We have methods of testing the containers they used and seeing what kind of residue there is. We have a lot of evidence of what was happening long before 10,000 BC and we can say with a great amount of confidence that humans were not farmers and did not create alcohol frequently. We have a lot of ways of getting high and drunk that didn't exist back then and we keep inventing more. Just because alcohol is plentiful now and almost everyone loves it, does not mean you can assume it has always existed. You are like a little kid that asks why General Washington didn't just go to Walmart to get new socks. Why would ancient cultures be different? Because they didn't have our knowledge or technology. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

The same reason why you believe in any history from a time so long ago be it that it all has such errors in it.

I don't. All stories should be approached with skepticism because the author always is limited by their own perspective and biases even if they intend to make an accurate representation. We also know that many authors intentionally create inaccurate representations. Historical writings are useful in that they can often point us in the right direction and help us create explanations. They should never be accepted as absolute fact without actual physical evidence. We have discovered many historical stories are absolute frauds. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on stories alone. 

 

caposkia wrote:

 I never said the Bible is not accurate, only that the authors used what they knew to portray what had happened... does that make a story inaccurate?  Names of places and methods of achieving similar results change over time, but because a later generation explains it by the names and means of what they use does that automatically make it impossible for the earlier generation to have had the same results?  of course not.

You are telling me that the Bible is the Truth. That it is so perfectly accurate that I should accept the exact words that it reports God as saying. I should believe that all the humans were wicked because God is reported in the Bible as saying they were all wicked. Either the Bible is an exact account of what God said, or it is less than exact. If it is less than exact, how can we say with certainty anything that God reportedly said? A few spoken sentences is a much smaller detail than whether Noah was a farmer or a nomad. If the Bible is factually wrong about one thing, then there is good reason to doubt it is factual about other things as well. And since ALL you have to support your entire belief is what the Bible says, then if it is inaccurate in the details, that would be a good reason to look for evidence elsewhere. You can't say "well yeah, the Bible is wrong about Noah being a farmer, but when it comes to God saying he would never drown the world again it is 100% accurate" That is the very definition of special pleading- claiming that one particular case is different from others with no logical reason. 

 

caposkia wrote:

What your claiming is not at all what I was saying.  It is generally known that the Bible stories were very carefully translated from one scribe to the next... in fact they are understood to be the most congruent through the generations compared to other writings that were translated in the same manner... google it.

That is completely irrelevant to how the story might have changed before it was written down and you are claiming the events happened millions of years before they were written down the first time.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

I used rock loosely too.    I was not suggesting that the hut or house was made strictly out of rock and nothing else... if you read your link carefully, you'll find that the main hut discussed in the article had 3 floors and stone was used in the making of that particular hut, which was unique to that hut and was not used in other huts on the same site... point and case, it was a strong house built.  That was the point of the statement in scripture and thus your article further supports that.

No it doesn't support the Bible. You are claiming that it had to have happened millions of years earlier and these huts were built around 20,000 BC. Not out of brick, but with layers of clay with uncut stone and pebbles mixed in and primarily out of brush. And this is the oldest such structure ever found. And as you point out, that particular hut was unique from what was primarily used (probably because hauling giant pieces of stone around was very difficult). There is no evidence that strong houses were built prior, the evidence we have suggests that a few people lived in caves and other such natural shelters but most people were nomadic. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sure, it is quite logical that quite a bit would be lost in such a large flood. But then we would expect to find evidence of extremely advanced technology much earlier than it was invented for modern times. Yes, we know they had axes, but those axes were at a technological level we would expect. If you suddenly find evidence of villages, farming, alcohol, boat building etc. that is 2 million+ years old, suddenly there is something that needs to be explained and a flood wiping out the whole community might be a logical explanation. But we have not found any such evidence.

why would we necessarily have to find all that?  I was assuming the technology we would find would still be seen as consistent to the times... though I guess anything's possible right?

If the technology we find is consistent with the times then your assumption that the flood occurred 2 million years ago is absolutely wrong because all the technology it refers to did not exist. So we are back to it happening around 10,000 BC something you told me you don't believe. Remember all the problems I pointed out to you about the timing which caused you to first claim 200,000 years ago and then later change it to 2 million+ years? Rather than looking at the facts and trying to figure out a plausible explanation to explain the evidence we have, you are starting with the story, assuming it is true and trying to hammer the facts into it. You are trying to put a square through a hole the shape of a circle and it is taking you an amazingly long time to realize it does not fit. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

We don't have 0 information, we have rather significant amounts of archaelogical evidence that gives us significant clues as to how humans lived and it isn't consistent with the accounts in the bible. That is why there is a lot of reasons to be skeptical.

I still have yet to see it.  Taking the English Bible at face value can lead one to believe that this is true, however learning the languages and what approach writers typically took to writing about something in their history reveals a much more congruent story with archaeology.  again, there's a whole study Bible out there written around Archaelogical evidences.  don't think that would have taken off if what you say is true.

All the "archaeological evidence" of the Bible comes from people who believe the flood occurred 5,000 to 15,000 BC or so and most of it from people who are YEC. You have told me that you don't believe that evidence. Why are you referring me to evidence that you do not believe is credible yourself? You can't say you don't believe the evidence then turn around and point to that same evidence to support your belief. (Well you can, but it just makes you irrational)

 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Just to keep consistency with our discussions.  We've accepted the millions of years ago possibility though it is theory be it that there is no specific dating to base it on and technology just as likely could have been somewhat more advanced then gone backwards especially if such a catastrophic event occurred.  E.g. it is theorized that when we get a major solar flare that hits earth, we will be sent back to the dark ages in technology.  Granted in this scenario generations beyond will be able to find evidences of our previous technology, but we also use materials that are more likely to last through the ages.

Yes, if such an event occurred, we would expect to find evidence of that technology. The materials are irrelevant, we find evidence of stone axes 2 million years old so if there was more advanced technology somewhere, we would expect to find that too. So far, we have found none. When we do, suddenly your explanation might make sense, but until the evidence is found that such technologies existed and then disappeared you have nothing but sheer speculation that is supported by absolutely zero evidence. You have exactly as much evidence as Scientologists and a story that is less entertaining.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

I can't... so all in all.. we can only guess as to what really happened and ages as to which children suffered... and whether they suffered more than they already were in life.  therefore determining the justification of God doing what He did based on this story alone is insufficient and illogical.  

All we have is this story, which you assure me is so accurate that I can trust that God did in fact promise to never do it again. And assuming that everything in the story is 100% accurate, God is evil. If the story is inaccurate, than perhaps God is not evil.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

I can't justify that it was alright, and you can't justify that it was wrong... we'd have to base it on other things God has done through the ages and what He is doing today.  

All we have to know what "other things" God has done is the exact same book. We can't disregard this particular story as not being accurate enough to make a determination on but the other stories as being accurate enough. That is special pleading. (As it happens, there are many other stories in the Bible which make God's morality questionable, we are just focusing on this one out of convenience. You claim that God's morality is perfect, so one exception proves you wrong.)

 

caposkia wrote:

If you feel that I'm running from the topic again, then please show me your evidences for the conclusion you have... there must be more than what scripture is telling us for you to rationally come up with that.

Scripture says God killed everyone. Everyone includes infants. Infants are innocent. God killed innocents. Intentionally killing innocents is immoral. Therefore, if scripture is accurate God is immoral. If you think intentionally killing innocents can be a moral act, you are also immoral. I tried really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, but apparently you think killing innocents is ok. 

 

caposkia wrote:

it is special pleading to say what you're saying to justify your conclusion.  I have simply told you that I justify Gods actions on this story based on what I know of Him throughout scripture and personally.  You are determined to continue with special pleading to defend your case without other basis.

There is no special pleading on my part. I make the base assertion that intentionally killing innocents is immoral- which I freely admit is an opinion (all morality is based on opinions) but it is an opinion I would hope we can share. God killed innocents and is therefore immoral. No exceptions being made at all. I would find any human who does the same immoral. The special pleading is on the part of your God who says it is immoral to kill innocents, it is one of his top ten rules, but then makes an exception for himself. I agree it is immoral to kill innocents, I disagree that God should get an exception to the rule just because he is God. The burden is on him to show that such an exception is logical. Which he hasn't done and you as his advocate have failed at as well.

If intentionally killing innocents is immoral, God is immoral. So are you arguing that intentionally killing innocents is not immoral?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Again, we can only assume that drowning them was worse than letting them live.  What was their life like if you're so sure that it was better to let them live?   Also, what would have come of them after all adults were killed?  The "God could have" statements are nothing more than special pleading for your case because you have no evidences or rationality as to why that would have been better other than your own opinion.  

Whether their lives were miserable or not is irrelevant. If my neighbor abuses their children, that does not justify me going in there with a gun and shooting all of them (kids included). I am quite sure that you would call me immoral for such an act and support locking me in jail for a very long time, even if I could prove that the kids had a hellish life. You are the one making a special pleading that such an act is immoral if I do it, but is moral when God does it. And your only justification is that God made the universe so can do whatever he wants. You have absolutely no evidence or logical reason to support the idea that God should get a special morality that is different than ours. 

I have shown several areas where you have made special pleading in favor of God. You have accused me of doing so, show me. Where have I ignored any evidence you presented and where have I ever made the claim that one case should be excepted from the usual, used a double standard or made a claim that is inherently unverifiable? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:cj

caposkia wrote:

cj wrote:

Nothing in this myth is accurate historically or archaeologically. Nothing in this myth justifies killing everyone in the entire world except on family and about 200,000 animals.

God grieved. Sounds a lot like my mom who would spank me and then cry with me. Parenting tip number 1: don't punish your children and then lay a guilt trip on them.

that's opinion unless you have evidences showing otherwise.  Also God declared them guilty before punishing them, not after.

 

 

When do you think the flood happened? (You may have said, but truthfully, I don't remember.)

Briefly, Egypt. The Egyptians were taxed based on the height of the Nile flood in that year. Because the amount of land inundated determined how much in the way of crops the farmers could produce. So we have found records of the Nile flood heights for thousands of years. There are no large gaps in this record. The recorded flood levels (that did NOT kill every Egyptian) continue uninterrupted for all those years.

If the entire world flooded, you would think there would be a gap in the record? Yes? At least a few years as the area was repopulated and the tax collectors got their act back together. No such gap in the record. No mention of a world wide flood that killed off all of the people.

My mom also declared me guilty before punishing me - and then she cried while and after whaling the tar out of me. Screwed me up big time - took years of therapy to get over it.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
REMIX U were always on my mind; U were always on my mind Ryles

cj wrote:

caposkia wrote:
;Also God declared them guilty before punishing them,..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRO_e7S9XCU

 

 


 

cj wrote:

caposkia wrote:
;Also God declared them guilty before punishing them,..

cj wrote:
.. took years of therapy . .




 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:cj

danatemporary wrote:

cj wrote:

caposkia wrote:
;Also God declared them guilty before punishing them,..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRO_e7S9XCU

 

 


 

cj wrote:

caposkia wrote:
;Also God declared them guilty before punishing them,..

cj wrote:
.. took years of therapy . .




 

 

Way too cute.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Way too cute.Please

cj wrote:

Way too cute.

Please don't encourage her Smiling


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote: You keep

RobbyPants wrote:

 

You keep changing back to this any time I prove that God had 100% control over the situation. You're effectively blaming the parents for putting their kids right in the path of a person with C4 and a sniper rifle who loves to use C4 when he doesn't have to. Sure, I'll blame the parents with you, but I'll blame God more. Regardless of whether or not the parents are short sighted or selfish, God still chooses to use C4 on children when he has other alternatives. It's a case of them both being wrong, and you will only admit half of this.

Logically, he could have used a sniper rifle... but if your goal was to take out thousands of people... do you really want to sit there and snipe each one of them?  Let's think about this.  If you had a mission to take out 1000's of people and chose to snipe them all, you'll likely find that you'd end up sniping the children that ultimately turned into adults before you were done with the population you originally sent out to destroy.  

The problem is you can't blame someone "more" someone is guilty and someone is not.  Who brought upon themselves the flood... or any destruction through the judgement of God?  

RobbyPants wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
It takes speical pleading to get there in the first place.  
How so?

First you have to suggest that the parents were not responsible for their children.  You also have to suggest that God went beyond the law and destroyed humanity for no good reason which then would suggest that scripture was wrong to say that population was nothing but evil.   You then need to suggest that God killing these children was worse off then letting them live which would then assume despite the evils this population had, the children were not being sacrificed, abused, raped, tortured, killed and eaten, turned into slaves etc. and that there was no where else for them to go.  This would also assume that God when 'killing" the children left their souls to despair and did not bring them into heaven for eternity.  This is also assuming there were a lot of children left living after sacrifices, beatings etc that might have killed off many already.  I could go on, but you get the point.  

For me to  suggest that God was justified in his actions, all I need to do is reference other parts of scripture where God reigned justice on a population and has a better explanation of why and what was happening... also in each scenario off the top of my head, He spared all that were innocent.  This leads me to logically conclude that the flood story was no different.  

all in all, you have to make a lot of assumptions to conclude God was unjust in His actions... you have to "plead" scenarios that can only be hypothetical based on nothing scripture or any other source says.

RobbyPants wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
I know i will not change your mind on the matter. 
I wouldn't expect you to. The cognitive dissonance is really tough. I went through it, too.

you mean are going through it... or are you suggesting I have this?  I'm at peace in the matter.  I'm trying to grasp from your perspective how I can rationalize what you're telling me... I still can't.  There's not enough rational conclusions to base your understanding on from what i can see.  I still see the parents fully responsible for the death of the innocent children you speak of.  We in this country may have laws that allows some of the blame to be put elsewhere, but consider that in any situation where a human being is not the source of the danger and yet a child is killed because of it, the care taker is to blame regardless of what it may be or how it may have happend.  Gods laws do not allow many to hold blame for what one person did.  Instead it falls completely on their shoulders.  e.g. a police officer might have shot a child, but the parent who brought their child to the gunfight when they had the opportunity for the child to be no where near the gunfight is fully responsible for what happens to that child.  To associate it further with the story, the parent also had the opportunity to make better choices considering the family they had to look after so as to not cause a reason for a conflict with the police to happen in the first place.  Still fully on the parent according to Gods laws.    Even still, the parent still had a choice when then confrontation began to realize their child was with them and take action to keep their child safe.  Best choice in this metaphorical story would be to not pick a fight with the police and accept the consequences for your actions.  In the flood story, ask of God for forgiveness at least so as to allow their children to survive.  

Still none of it happened despite happening in other stories.  I have other examples (stories) to back it up, what do you have?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The Bible doesn't say Noah "ate bad fruit", it says he became a "man of the soil" and "planted a vineyard" then relates a story of one night getting drunk drinking wine and passing out naked in his tent. You can get alcohol from simply eating fermented fruit, but not a lot. With modern technology/techniques- adding additional yeast and sugar and maintaining perfect temperature conditions- it takes about 2.5 pounds of grapes to get one bottle of wine. Which is about 400-700 grapes. You try eating that many grapes in a single sitting. (Or even half that many, I know not everyone can polish off a bottle of wine like I can.) With just the natural yeast, natural sugar and imperfect temperature conditions, you will have a much lower yield and need far more grapes to get the equivalent amount of alcohol. 

If you remember in context of this thread, we're talking about the writer using what they know.  a vineyard could just have easily been an orchard, but because it was associated with drunkenness the logical conclusion would be vineyard for the writer.  

There are also other sources of alcohol than grapes.  yes it takes a lot of grapes to make wine, but other fruits need less abundance to get the same result.  It's well known that animals in some parts of the world have gotten drunk off of eating certain overripe fruits...why not a human off the same fruit?? youtube it sometime.

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is evidence that our ancestors developed the ability to metabolize ethanol as early as 10 million years ago, an adaptation that allowed for more life on the ground rather than trees as it became less necessary to pick fresh fruit. It is believed at the time that most primates could not metabolize ethanol. Most primates that are primarily tree dwelling today do not share the enzyme that breaks down ethanol, while those that are often ground dwelling do. The amount of ethanol you get from eating old fruit at the base of a tree is nowhere near enough to get you drunk. You get drunk when you drink more than your body can metabolize efficiently. 

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/348385/description/Origins_of_alcohol_consumption_traced_to_ape_ancestor

considering what you just said, it would make sense that a very small amount could get someone of that age drunk be it that their metabolism hadn't adapted fully yet to metabolizing alcohol.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Whether you find it hard to believe or not is irrelevant. We have physical evidence of what people ate and drank. We have methods of testing the containers they used and seeing what kind of residue there is. We have a lot of evidence of what was happening long before 10,000 BC and we can say with a great amount of confidence that humans were not farmers and did not create alcohol frequently. We have a lot of ways of getting high and drunk that didn't exist back then and we keep inventing more. Just because alcohol is plentiful now and almost everyone loves it, does not mean you can assume it has always existed. You are like a little kid that asks why General Washington didn't just go to Walmart to get new socks. Why would ancient cultures be different? Because they didn't have our knowledge or technology. 

you're assuming it wasn't possible if they didn't farm.  Also you're assuming farming started only after the tools were invented... could it be that after generations of farming, tools were invented to make it easier?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't. All stories should be approached with skepticism because the author always is limited by their own perspective and biases even if they intend to make an accurate representation. We also know that many authors intentionally create inaccurate representations. Historical writings are useful in that they can often point us in the right direction and help us create explanations. They should never be accepted as absolute fact without actual physical evidence. We have discovered many historical stories are absolute frauds. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on stories alone. 

this is kind of what I've been trying to tell you yet for some reason you still want to take the stories literally AND also assume that they have no truth to them...  all without evidence... skepticism goes both ways.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are telling me that the Bible is the Truth. That it is so perfectly accurate that I should accept the exact words that it reports God as saying. I should believe that all the humans were wicked because God is reported in the Bible as saying they were all wicked. Either the Bible is an exact account of what God said, or it is less than exact. If it is less than exact, how can we say with certainty anything that God reportedly said? A few spoken sentences is a much smaller detail than whether Noah was a farmer or a nomad. If the Bible is factually wrong about one thing, then there is good reason to doubt it is factual about other things as well. And since ALL you have to support your entire belief is what the Bible says, then if it is inaccurate in the details, that would be a good reason to look for evidence elsewhere. You can't say "well yeah, the Bible is wrong about Noah being a farmer, but when it comes to God saying he would never drown the world again it is 100% accurate" That is the very definition of special pleading- claiming that one particular case is different from others with no logical reason. 

yea, all I have to support my entire belief is what the Bible says... in connection with history... and archaeology.... and science... statistical inference... oh and personal experience... yea.. you're right.  What was I thinking...

in reference to your special pleading case:  God says he would never drown the world again being 100% accurate... and if that's true, then we can prove it by looking at a rainbow.  what physical manifestation can we look at today to prove that Noah was or was not a farmer?   Nice try though..  what else do you want to say I'm using special pleading for?  

Again, it was not an eye witness account.  Also consider that if God is real, He's going to make sure the important parts of scripture are accurate... how detrimental to the Christian faith is it that Noah farmed and got drunk???  Let's compare to how detrimental it is to the Chirsitan faith that God promised not to flood the Earth again?  There's ... I don't know... maybe a smidgen more weight to one of those... whaddya think?

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

What your claiming is not at all what I was saying.  It is generally known that the Bible stories were very carefully translated from one scribe to the next... in fact they are understood to be the most congruent through the generations compared to other writings that were translated in the same manner... google it.

That is completely irrelevant to how the story might have changed before it was written down and you are claiming the events happened millions of years before they were written down the first time.

not irrelevant.  If there was that much care to scribing it, why would there be any less care in passing it down?  How can you conclude otherwise?

Beyond Saving wrote:

No it doesn't support the Bible. You are claiming that it had to have happened millions of years earlier and these huts were built around 20,000 BC. Not out of brick, but with layers of clay with uncut stone and pebbles mixed in and primarily out of brush. And this is the oldest such structure ever found. And as you point out, that particular hut was unique from what was primarily used (probably because hauling giant pieces of stone around was very difficult). There is no evidence that strong houses were built prior, the evidence we have suggests that a few people lived in caves and other such natural shelters but most people were nomadic. 

I know you don't want it to, but evidence suggests in your article.  A strong house is a strong house built.  There is reason to believe that our ancestors lived in caves, but there's also reason to believe we were tree dwelling creatures and actually lived ate and slept in trees... Are you telling me not one of them constructed some sort of shelter from a storm using the resources readily available?  Even current day tree dwelling creatures do that, I want to see your research that suggests otherwise.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If the technology we find is consistent with the times then your assumption that the flood occurred 2 million years ago is absolutely wrong because all the technology it refers to did not exist. So we are back to it happening around 10,000 BC something you told me you don't believe. Remember all the problems I pointed out to you about the timing which caused you to first claim 200,000 years ago and then later change it to 2 million+ years? Rather than looking at the facts and trying to figure out a plausible explanation to explain the evidence we have, you are starting with the story, assuming it is true and trying to hammer the facts into it. You are trying to put a square through a hole the shape of a circle and it is taking you an amazingly long time to realize it does not fit. 

I start with the story because that is the topic of discussion and I am cross referencing with other stories that are scripturally related and use logical inference to determine the reason and cause certain things happen or were claimed as such.  I have given a clear explanation of how writers in ancient times tend to reference to their present time names and technology when reiterating an older story passed down.  This allows the hearer to better understand what was happening and this is seen throughout ancient texts.  You try to put a square peg in a round hole by suggesting we need to take it literally after hearing that evidence.

Beyond Saving wrote:

All the "archaeological evidence" of the Bible comes from people who believe the flood occurred 5,000 to 15,000 BC or so and most of it from people who are YEC. You have told me that you don't believe that evidence. Why are you referring me to evidence that you do not believe is credible yourself? You can't say you don't believe the evidence then turn around and point to that same evidence to support your belief. (Well you can, but it just makes you irrational)

I'm sorry.. what pages were you referring to so i can answer to that directly?  I'm assuming you looked it up in the Archaeological study Bible that was mentioned and saw something that suggests a YEC pov, which possibly is there.    From what i saw, I only found cross references to other extra-Biblical texts that referenced to a flood of the same magnitude...  

I know you weren't making an assumption without doing the research first... riiiiiighht????

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, if such an event occurred, we would expect to find evidence of that technology. The materials are irrelevant, we find evidence of stone axes 2 million years old so if there was more advanced technology somewhere, we would expect to find that too. So far, we have found none. When we do, suddenly your explanation might make sense, but until the evidence is found that such technologies existed and then disappeared you have nothing but sheer speculation that is supported by absolutely zero evidence. You have exactly as much evidence as Scientologists and a story that is less entertaining.

I have presented you many evidences including translational and cultural yet you keep coming back with no evidence claims.  You also don't yet want to move on to other stories with better explanations of scenarios to compare to.  I get that you're bent on disproving my understanding, but you need to use a bit of rational thinking before you loose all credibility.

Beyond Saving wrote:

All we have is this story, which you assure me is so accurate that I can trust that God did in fact promise to never do it again. And assuming that everything in the story is 100% accurate, God is evil. If the story is inaccurate, than perhaps God is not evil.

that made no sense. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

All we have to know what "other things" God has done is the exact same book. We can't disregard this particular story as not being accurate enough to make a determination on but the other stories as being accurate enough. That is special pleading. (As it happens, there are many other stories in the Bible which make God's morality questionable, we are just focusing on this one out of convenience. You claim that God's morality is perfect, so one exception proves you wrong.)

I don't remember saying "accurate enough"  I remember saying there's not enough information to go on based on this story.  We know almost nothing of the culture in question and even exactly when it happened and the process of events that lead up to the flood.  That has nothing to do with accuracy.  The only question would be the inconsequentials that are common among ancient writings, which does nothing to the credibility of the story nor the details within.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Scripture says God killed everyone. Everyone includes infants. Infants are innocent. God killed innocents. Intentionally killing innocents is immoral. Therefore, if scripture is accurate God is immoral. If you think intentionally killing innocents can be a moral act, you are also immoral. I tried really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, but apparently you think killing innocents is ok. 

you added infants.  you also make an assumption that:

1. innocents were killed

2. God was responsible for them

3.  God killed them.  

How do you know that people didn't kill all their young ones before the flood in hopes to appease their gods and be saved?  Considering the level of evil claimed, that might not be a far fetched assumption.. an assumption none the less but no more of an assumption than what you've been trying to use to base your conclusion.

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is no special pleading on my part. I make the base assertion that intentionally killing innocents is immoral- which I freely admit is an opinion (all morality is based on opinions) but it is an opinion I would hope we can share. God killed innocents and is therefore immoral. No exceptions being made at all. I would find any human who does the same immoral. The special pleading is on the part of your God who says it is immoral to kill innocents, it is one of his top ten rules, but then makes an exception for himself. I agree it is immoral to kill innocents, I disagree that God should get an exception to the rule just because he is God. The burden is on him to show that such an exception is logical. Which he hasn't done and you as his advocate have failed at as well.

If intentionally killing innocents is immoral, God is immoral. So are you arguing that intentionally killing innocents is not immoral?

You plead that innocents were killed... nowhere does it suggest that in scripture and in all other scenarios, including one where God was questioned directly about what would happen to anyone innocent in a certain situation, God doesn't do that.  

you can only assume innocents were killed by God.  All other Biblical stories claiming destruction of a particular place gives an escape for innocents.  AS I discussed way back when we started... if there were innocents as you suggest, there's nothing to suggest God would not have done the same and everything in the Bible to suggest that He would have done the same as the other stories.  You have no basis.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Whether their lives were miserable or not is irrelevant. If my neighbor abuses their children, that does not justify me going in there with a gun and shooting all of them (kids included). I am quite sure that you would call me immoral for such an act and support locking me in jail for a very long time, even if I could prove that the kids had a hellish life. You are the one making a special pleading that such an act is immoral if I do it, but is moral when God does it. And your only justification is that God made the universe so can do whatever he wants. You have absolutely no evidence or logical reason to support the idea that God should get a special morality that is different than ours. 

I have shown several areas where you have made special pleading in favor of God. You have accused me of doing so, show me. Where have I ignored any evidence you presented and where have I ever made the claim that one case should be excepted from the usual, used a double standard or made a claim that is inherently unverifiable? 

you and I both know there are ways out for those children.  My "special pleading" as you call it has rationalities that you're not ready to look at yet.  I have offered to look at several other destruction stories to compare the actions of God.  special pleading requires that I have no such rationalities.  You on the other hand are convinced that God killed innocents despite no evidence of such.  YOu base it on the logic that kids must have been around.  why? because that's the way it is today?  No culture since has ever been deemed pure evil as this one has in the Bible.  I don't know what it was like, but it's logical to conclude that if there were innocents, that they would have been spared.  If not, the parents are still responsible, not God.   It's special pleading on your part to suggest otherwise.  

I don't know how many more ways I can explain it to you.  

maybe this using your scenario.  if your abusive neighbor ended up killing their children and you did nothing about it, but knew about it, should you be held responsible for their deaths?  By your knowledge you would be an accessory.  but by your logic you'd be innocent.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The Bible doesn't say Noah "ate bad fruit", it says he became a "man of the soil" and "planted a vineyard" then relates a story of one night getting drunk drinking wine and passing out naked in his tent. You can get alcohol from simply eating fermented fruit, but not a lot. With modern technology/techniques- adding additional yeast and sugar and maintaining perfect temperature conditions- it takes about 2.5 pounds of grapes to get one bottle of wine. Which is about 400-700 grapes. You try eating that many grapes in a single sitting. (Or even half that many, I know not everyone can polish off a bottle of wine like I can.) With just the natural yeast, natural sugar and imperfect temperature conditions, you will have a much lower yield and need far more grapes to get the equivalent amount of alcohol. 

If you remember in context of this thread, we're talking about the writer using what they know.  a vineyard could just have easily been an orchard, but because it was associated with drunkenness the logical conclusion would be vineyard for the writer.  

There are also other sources of alcohol than grapes.  yes it takes a lot of grapes to make wine, but other fruits need less abundance to get the same result.  It's well known that animals in some parts of the world have gotten drunk off of eating certain overripe fruits...why not a human off the same fruit?? youtube it sometime.

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is evidence that our ancestors developed the ability to metabolize ethanol as early as 10 million years ago, an adaptation that allowed for more life on the ground rather than trees as it became less necessary to pick fresh fruit. It is believed at the time that most primates could not metabolize ethanol. Most primates that are primarily tree dwelling today do not share the enzyme that breaks down ethanol, while those that are often ground dwelling do. The amount of ethanol you get from eating old fruit at the base of a tree is nowhere near enough to get you drunk. You get drunk when you drink more than your body can metabolize efficiently. 

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/348385/description/Origins_of_alcohol_consumption_traced_to_ape_ancestor

considering what you just said, it would make sense that a very small amount could get someone of that age drunk be it that their metabolism hadn't adapted fully yet to metabolizing alcohol.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Whether you find it hard to believe or not is irrelevant. We have physical evidence of what people ate and drank. We have methods of testing the containers they used and seeing what kind of residue there is. We have a lot of evidence of what was happening long before 10,000 BC and we can say with a great amount of confidence that humans were not farmers and did not create alcohol frequently. We have a lot of ways of getting high and drunk that didn't exist back then and we keep inventing more. Just because alcohol is plentiful now and almost everyone loves it, does not mean you can assume it has always existed. You are like a little kid that asks why General Washington didn't just go to Walmart to get new socks. Why would ancient cultures be different? Because they didn't have our knowledge or technology. 

you're assuming it wasn't possible if they didn't farm.  Also you're assuming farming started only after the tools were invented... could it be that after generations of farming, tools were invented to make it easier?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't. All stories should be approached with skepticism because the author always is limited by their own perspective and biases even if they intend to make an accurate representation. We also know that many authors intentionally create inaccurate representations. Historical writings are useful in that they can often point us in the right direction and help us create explanations. They should never be accepted as absolute fact without actual physical evidence. We have discovered many historical stories are absolute frauds. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on stories alone. 

this is kind of what I've been trying to tell you yet for some reason you still want to take the stories literally AND also assume that they have no truth to them...  all without evidence... skepticism goes both ways.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are telling me that the Bible is the Truth. That it is so perfectly accurate that I should accept the exact words that it reports God as saying. I should believe that all the humans were wicked because God is reported in the Bible as saying they were all wicked. Either the Bible is an exact account of what God said, or it is less than exact. If it is less than exact, how can we say with certainty anything that God reportedly said? A few spoken sentences is a much smaller detail than whether Noah was a farmer or a nomad. If the Bible is factually wrong about one thing, then there is good reason to doubt it is factual about other things as well. And since ALL you have to support your entire belief is what the Bible says, then if it is inaccurate in the details, that would be a good reason to look for evidence elsewhere. You can't say "well yeah, the Bible is wrong about Noah being a farmer, but when it comes to God saying he would never drown the world again it is 100% accurate" That is the very definition of special pleading- claiming that one particular case is different from others with no logical reason. 

yea, all I have to support my entire belief is what the Bible says... in connection with history... and archaeology.... and science... statistical inference... oh and personal experience... yea.. you're right.  What was I thinking...

in reference to your special pleading case:  God says he would never drown the world again being 100% accurate... and if that's true, then we can prove it by looking at a rainbow.  what physical manifestation can we look at today to prove that Noah was or was not a farmer?   Nice try though..  what else do you want to say I'm using special pleading for?  

Again, it was not an eye witness account.  Also consider that if God is real, He's going to make sure the important parts of scripture are accurate... how detrimental to the Christian faith is it that Noah farmed and got drunk???  Let's compare to how detrimental it is to the Chirsitan faith that God promised not to flood the Earth again?  There's ... I don't know... maybe a smidgen more weight to one of those... whaddya think?

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

What your claiming is not at all what I was saying.  It is generally known that the Bible stories were very carefully translated from one scribe to the next... in fact they are understood to be the most congruent through the generations compared to other writings that were translated in the same manner... google it.

That is completely irrelevant to how the story might have changed before it was written down and you are claiming the events happened millions of years before they were written down the first time.

not irrelevant.  If there was that much care to scribing it, why would there be any less care in passing it down?  How can you conclude otherwise?

Beyond Saving wrote:

No it doesn't support the Bible. You are claiming that it had to have happened millions of years earlier and these huts were built around 20,000 BC. Not out of brick, but with layers of clay with uncut stone and pebbles mixed in and primarily out of brush. And this is the oldest such structure ever found. And as you point out, that particular hut was unique from what was primarily used (probably because hauling giant pieces of stone around was very difficult). There is no evidence that strong houses were built prior, the evidence we have suggests that a few people lived in caves and other such natural shelters but most people were nomadic. 

I know you don't want it to, but evidence suggests in your article.  A strong house is a strong house built.  There is reason to believe that our ancestors lived in caves, but there's also reason to believe we were tree dwelling creatures and actually lived ate and slept in trees... Are you telling me not one of them constructed some sort of shelter from a storm using the resources readily available?  Even current day tree dwelling creatures do that, I want to see your research that suggests otherwise.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If the technology we find is consistent with the times then your assumption that the flood occurred 2 million years ago is absolutely wrong because all the technology it refers to did not exist. So we are back to it happening around 10,000 BC something you told me you don't believe. Remember all the problems I pointed out to you about the timing which caused you to first claim 200,000 years ago and then later change it to 2 million+ years? Rather than looking at the facts and trying to figure out a plausible explanation to explain the evidence we have, you are starting with the story, assuming it is true and trying to hammer the facts into it. You are trying to put a square through a hole the shape of a circle and it is taking you an amazingly long time to realize it does not fit. 

I start with the story because that is the topic of discussion and I am cross referencing with other stories that are scripturally related and use logical inference to determine the reason and cause certain things happen or were claimed as such.  I have given a clear explanation of how writers in ancient times tend to reference to their present time names and technology when reiterating an older story passed down.  This allows the hearer to better understand what was happening and this is seen throughout ancient texts.  You try to put a square peg in a round hole by suggesting we need to take it literally after hearing that evidence.

Beyond Saving wrote:

All the "archaeological evidence" of the Bible comes from people who believe the flood occurred 5,000 to 15,000 BC or so and most of it from people who are YEC. You have told me that you don't believe that evidence. Why are you referring me to evidence that you do not believe is credible yourself? You can't say you don't believe the evidence then turn around and point to that same evidence to support your belief. (Well you can, but it just makes you irrational)

I'm sorry.. what pages were you referring to so i can answer to that directly?  I'm assuming you looked it up in the Archaeological study Bible that was mentioned and saw something that suggests a YEC pov, which possibly is there.    From what i saw, I only found cross references to other extra-Biblical texts that referenced to a flood of the same magnitude...  

I know you weren't making an assumption without doing the research first... riiiiiighht????

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, if such an event occurred, we would expect to find evidence of that technology. The materials are irrelevant, we find evidence of stone axes 2 million years old so if there was more advanced technology somewhere, we would expect to find that too. So far, we have found none. When we do, suddenly your explanation might make sense, but until the evidence is found that such technologies existed and then disappeared you have nothing but sheer speculation that is supported by absolutely zero evidence. You have exactly as much evidence as Scientologists and a story that is less entertaining.

I have presented you many evidences including translational and cultural yet you keep coming back with no evidence claims.  You also don't yet want to move on to other stories with better explanations of scenarios to compare to.  I get that you're bent on disproving my understanding, but you need to use a bit of rational thinking before you loose all credibility.

Beyond Saving wrote:

All we have is this story, which you assure me is so accurate that I can trust that God did in fact promise to never do it again. And assuming that everything in the story is 100% accurate, God is evil. If the story is inaccurate, than perhaps God is not evil.

that made no sense. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

All we have to know what "other things" God has done is the exact same book. We can't disregard this particular story as not being accurate enough to make a determination on but the other stories as being accurate enough. That is special pleading. (As it happens, there are many other stories in the Bible which make God's morality questionable, we are just focusing on this one out of convenience. You claim that God's morality is perfect, so one exception proves you wrong.)

I don't remember saying "accurate enough"  I remember saying there's not enough information to go on based on this story.  We know almost nothing of the culture in question and even exactly when it happened and the process of events that lead up to the flood.  That has nothing to do with accuracy.  The only question would be the inconsequentials that are common among ancient writings, which does nothing to the credibility of the story nor the details within.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Scripture says God killed everyone. Everyone includes infants. Infants are innocent. God killed innocents. Intentionally killing innocents is immoral. Therefore, if scripture is accurate God is immoral. If you think intentionally killing innocents can be a moral act, you are also immoral. I tried really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, but apparently you think killing innocents is ok. 

you added infants.  you also make an assumption that:

1. innocents were killed

2. God was responsible for them

3.  God killed them.  

How do you know that people didn't kill all their young ones before the flood in hopes to appease their gods and be saved?  Considering the level of evil claimed, that might not be a far fetched assumption.. an assumption none the less but no more of an assumption than what you've been trying to use to base your conclusion.

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is no special pleading on my part. I make the base assertion that intentionally killing innocents is immoral- which I freely admit is an opinion (all morality is based on opinions) but it is an opinion I would hope we can share. God killed innocents and is therefore immoral. No exceptions being made at all. I would find any human who does the same immoral. The special pleading is on the part of your God who says it is immoral to kill innocents, it is one of his top ten rules, but then makes an exception for himself. I agree it is immoral to kill innocents, I disagree that God should get an exception to the rule just because he is God. The burden is on him to show that such an exception is logical. Which he hasn't done and you as his advocate have failed at as well.

If intentionally killing innocents is immoral, God is immoral. So are you arguing that intentionally killing innocents is not immoral?

You plead that innocents were killed... nowhere does it suggest that in scripture and in all other scenarios, including one where God was questioned directly about what would happen to anyone innocent in a certain situation, God doesn't do that.  

you can only assume innocents were killed by God.  All other Biblical stories claiming destruction of a particular place gives an escape for innocents.  AS I discussed way back when we started... if there were innocents as you suggest, there's nothing to suggest God would not have done the same and everything in the Bible to suggest that He would have done the same as the other stories.  You have no basis.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Whether their lives were miserable or not is irrelevant. If my neighbor abuses their children, that does not justify me going in there with a gun and shooting all of them (kids included). I am quite sure that you would call me immoral for such an act and support locking me in jail for a very long time, even if I could prove that the kids had a hellish life. You are the one making a special pleading that such an act is immoral if I do it, but is moral when God does it. And your only justification is that God made the universe so can do whatever he wants. You have absolutely no evidence or logical reason to support the idea that God should get a special morality that is different than ours. 

I have shown several areas where you have made special pleading in favor of God. You have accused me of doing so, show me. Where have I ignored any evidence you presented and where have I ever made the claim that one case should be excepted from the usual, used a double standard or made a claim that is inherently unverifiable? 

you and I both know there are ways out for those children.  My "special pleading" as you call it has rationalities that you're not ready to look at yet.  I have offered to look at several other destruction stories to compare the actions of God.  special pleading requires that I have no such rationalities.  You on the other hand are convinced that God killed innocents despite no evidence of such.  YOu base it on the logic that kids must have been around.  why? because that's the way it is today?  No culture since has ever been deemed pure evil as this one has in the Bible.  I don't know what it was like, but it's logical to conclude that if there were innocents, that they would have been spared.  If not, the parents are still responsible, not God.   It's special pleading on your part to suggest otherwise.  

I don't know how many more ways I can explain it to you.  

maybe this using your scenario.  if your abusive neighbor ended up killing their children and you did nothing about it, but knew about it, should you be held responsible for their deaths?  By your knowledge you would be an accessory.  but by your logic you'd be innocent.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:When do you think

cj wrote:

When do you think the flood happened? (You may have said, but truthfully, I don't remember.)

Briefly, Egypt. The Egyptians were taxed based on the height of the Nile flood in that year. Because the amount of land inundated determined how much in the way of crops the farmers could produce. So we have found records of the Nile flood heights for thousands of years. There are no large gaps in this record. The recorded flood levels (that did NOT kill every Egyptian) continue uninterrupted for all those years.

If the entire world flooded, you would think there would be a gap in the record? Yes? At least a few years as the area was repopulated and the tax collectors got their act back together. No such gap in the record. No mention of a world wide flood that killed off all of the people.

My mom also declared me guilty before punishing me - and then she cried while and after whaling the tar out of me. Screwed me up big time - took years of therapy to get over it.

 

We've estimated based on evidence presented on this thread that it possibly could have happened upwards of 2 million years ago.  Egypt would not have been established yet.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:cj wrote:When

caposkia wrote:

cj wrote:

When do you think the flood happened? (You may have said, but truthfully, I don't remember.)

Briefly, Egypt. The Egyptians were taxed based on the height of the Nile flood in that year. Because the amount of land inundated determined how much in the way of crops the farmers could produce. So we have found records of the Nile flood heights for thousands of years. There are no large gaps in this record. The recorded flood levels (that did NOT kill every Egyptian) continue uninterrupted for all those years.

If the entire world flooded, you would think there would be a gap in the record? Yes? At least a few years as the area was repopulated and the tax collectors got their act back together. No such gap in the record. No mention of a world wide flood that killed off all of the people.

My mom also declared me guilty before punishing me - and then she cried while and after whaling the tar out of me. Screwed me up big time - took years of therapy to get over it.

 

We've estimated based on evidence presented on this thread that it possibly could have happened upwards of 2 million years ago.  Egypt would not have been established yet.

Nor would Homosapiens. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Logically, he

caposkia wrote:

Logically, he could have used a sniper rifle... but if your goal was to take out thousands of people... do you really want to sit there and snipe each one of them? Let's think about this. If you had a mission to take out 1000's of people and chose to snipe them all, you'll likely find that you'd end up sniping the children that ultimately turned into adults before you were done with the population you originally sent out to destroy.

You're missing the point of the analogy. The point of differentiating between sniper rifle and C4 was to differentiate between selecting targets or hitting them all. We don't particularly care if God has one target or a thousand; he's God and he could simultaneously snipe them all.

In the flood story, people are distinctly split into two groups: wicked and not wicked. You have two choices:

1) Declare the children wicked and worthy of death, which is creepy, or

2) Declare the children not wicked and claim that they were collateral damage. This gets back to the sniper rifle and C4 analogy. God could have killed all the wicked people and no others, but he didn't

Your two options are that the children themselves were wicked and deserved death (creepy) or that they weren't, but God killed them anyway (God is creepy). That's it. There's no magical third answer. You can place all the blame you want on the parents, but concerning God, you have two options.


caposkia wrote:
The problem is you can't blame someone "more" someone is guilty and someone is not. Who brought upon themselves the flood... or any destruction through the judgement of God?

Yes you can. God is in complete control here.



caposkia wrote:
First you have to suggest that the parents were not responsible for their children. You also have to suggest that God went beyond the law and destroyed humanity for no good reason which then would suggest that scripture was wrong to say that population was nothing but evil. You then need to suggest that God killing these children was worse off then letting them live which would then assume despite the evils this population had, the children were not being sacrificed, abused, raped, tortured, killed and eaten, turned into slaves etc. and that there was no where else for them to go. This would also assume that God when 'killing" the children left their souls to despair and did not bring them into heaven for eternity. This is also assuming there were a lot of children left living after sacrifices, beatings etc that might have killed off many already. I could go on, but you get the point.

That's not what special pleading means.



caposkia wrote:
you mean are going through it... or are you suggesting I have this? I'm at peace in the matter. I'm trying to grasp from your perspective how I can rationalize what you're telling me... I still can't. There's not enough rational conclusions to base your understanding on from what i can see. I still see the parents fully responsible for the death of the innocent children you speak of. We in this country may have laws that allows some of the blame to be put elsewhere, but consider that in any situation where a human being is not the source of the danger and yet a child is killed because of it, the care taker is to blame regardless of what it may be or how it may have happend. Gods laws do not allow many to hold blame for what one person did. Instead it falls completely on their shoulders. e.g. a police officer might have shot a child, but the parent who brought their child to the gunfight when they had the opportunity for the child to be no where near the gunfight is fully responsible for what happens to that child. To associate it further with the story, the parent also had the opportunity to make better choices considering the family they had to look after so as to not cause a reason for a conflict with the police to happen in the first place. Still fully on the parent according to Gods laws. Even still, the parent still had a choice when then confrontation began to realize their child was with them and take action to keep their child safe. Best choice in this metaphorical story would be to not pick a fight with the police and accept the consequences for your actions. In the flood story, ask of God for forgiveness at least so as to allow their children to survive.

Still none of it happened despite happening in other stories. I have other examples (stories) to back it up, what do you have?

You.

You are doing it again. To try and justify your "blame just the parents and not God" position, you keep using an analogy where God is likened to a human police officer, complete with human limitations. You do not believe this. You go not believe that your god is a fallible human. You believe he is quite powerful (all powerful?) and capable of all of the wonders of the Bible. You believe he is capable of precision striking people when it suits him (as is evidenced in various stories in the Bible where one person is singled out). Yet, to remove any culpability from God, you put this all on hold, compare him to a human, and attempt to absolve him from any responsibility. You cannot have it both ways. Either God is great and is capable of more than a police officer or he is not. He isn't great and powerful, except when dispensing death to kids.

This is why I'm saying you're suffering from cognitive dissonance. You see the inherent problems with an all-loving God doling out death to children to punish their wicked parents, and this is how you attempt to remove the dissonance. The normal, rational responses are to remove one of the two competing issues (either admit that God isn't all-loving or dismiss the flood story as having never happened). You, instead, are taking the path of psychological least resistance, and are trying to create an illusion where God is all-loving and where the flood story totally happened.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:  For me to

caposkia wrote:
 

For me to  suggest that God was justified in his actions, all I need to do is reference other parts of scripture where God reigned justice on a population and has a better explanation of why and what was happening... also in each scenario off the top of my head, He spared all that were innocent.  This leads me to logically conclude that the flood story was no different.  

all in all, you have to make a lot of assumptions to conclude God was unjust in His actions... you have to "plead" scenarios that can only be hypothetical based on nothing scripture or any other source says.

I am hardly a biblical scholar but one of the first things that came to my mind was Exodus. Had to google it to find the exact spot, but 

Exodus 12:29 wrote:

At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

Another case, off the top of my head which hasn't bothered memorizing the whole bible, where God killed innocents. He also used the sniper approach to pick off only the innocents. If he flooded the place, he might have killed the Pharaoh who had pissed him off too. Also, as usual God kills perfectly innocent animals on top of his slaughter of firstborns. 

And do I need to point out the numerous times throughout the bible where God ordered the slaughter of entire peoples including women and infants?

The one thing that is clear, when it comes to punishing people God has absolutely no problem with killing their families, often leaving the person his vengeance is against alive. He obviously has no problem with killing innocents throughout the bible for no sin greater than being born to the wrong father. Did you conveniently forget those stories too?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If you

caposkia wrote:

If you remember in context of this thread, we're talking about the writer using what they know.  a vineyard could just have easily been an orchard, but because it was associated with drunkenness the logical conclusion would be vineyard for the writer.  

There are also other sources of alcohol than grapes.  yes it takes a lot of grapes to make wine, but other fruits need less abundance to get the same result.  It's well known that animals in some parts of the world have gotten drunk off of eating certain overripe fruits...why not a human off the same fruit?? youtube it sometime.

One of the reasons grapes are the primary choice for wine is that they are so efficient at making alcohol. It takes roughly 3 pounds of strawberries to make the same amount of wine. If you want to go the cider route, it takes about 10 pounds of apples to make one gallon of cider. Whatever fruit you want to choose, you would have to eat an inhuman amount of rotten fruit to get a good buzz.

It is not well known that animals get drunk eating overripe fruits. Those claims are an internet legend that has gone around and are completely false. Perhaps the best known example is the video of the Elephants supposedly getting drunk off of Marula fruit. That particular video was faked by sedating the Elephants beforehand. Actual scientific studies have proven the whole concept false. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/499983 

The only wild animals that have been demonstrated to get high alcohol content in their blood are birds, bats and the pen-tailed tree shrew. Which makes sense because birds and bats have very light body weights compared to the amount of food they can eat. The shrew manages to consume significant amounts of alcohol because the bertam palm produces nectar that has a 3.2% alcohol content. Monkeys in cities have been known to get drunk from stealing human made alcohol from unwary tourists, but never in the wild from eating fruit. Don't believe everything you see on youtube. 

 

caposkia wrote:

considering what you just said, it would make sense that a very small amount could get someone of that age drunk be it that their metabolism hadn't adapted fully yet to metabolizing alcohol.

So now you are saying Noah existed 10 million years ago? We keep pushing this back and Noah is going to be riding a T-Rex.  

 

caposkia wrote:

you're assuming it wasn't possible if they didn't farm.  Also you're assuming farming started only after the tools were invented... could it be that after generations of farming, tools were invented to make it easier?

We know general tools existed long before there is any evidence of farming whatsoever. Humans used tools when they were nomadic and it is pretty safe to assume that when humans were nomadic they did not farm since farming requires fairly consistent attention. The first evidence we have of farming is at Ohalo II and it isn't farm tools. They collected large amounts of seeds and had large amounts of grain in storage, the seeds had apparently been dried, so the assumption is that they were farming because there isn't much reason to collect a pile of seeds if you don't plan on planting them and drying seeds by a fire or in the sun was the first step for preserving them to be planted next year. (If seeds stay wet they tend to develop mold and will not grow when you plant them next year.) This was dated slightly after 20,000 BC. I think it is safe to assume that they used some form of tools, we know they had crude axes and spears, and it isn't a huge leap to assume that whoever was digging up the soil realized it would be easier not using their hands. Specialized farming tools such as sickles, spades, scythes etc. took a bit more time to appear. We know when people started farming because we can tell what they stored, whether they stayed at the same location permanently and what they ate.  

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4256914?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102622508601

 

caposkia wrote:

this is kind of what I've been trying to tell you yet for some reason you still want to take the stories literally AND also assume that they have no truth to them...  all without evidence... skepticism goes both ways.

I am assuming for the sake of discussion that the story is accurate because you claim it is accurate. I am pointing out the huge flaws in the story which makes it unlikely. I have provided you with significant amounts of evidence to support the problems I have pointed out in the story. The only evidence you have presented is the story itself and your rationalization of it. You are now admitting that parts of the story are absolutely false. So why should I believe the rest of the story that has zero supporting evidence?

 

caposkia wrote:

yea, all I have to support my entire belief is what the Bible says... in connection with history... and archaeology.... and science... statistical inference... oh and personal experience... yea.. you're right.  What was I thinking...

You have no history, archaeology, science or statistical inference. At least none you have presented here. The history strongly suggests that the stories of the Abrahamic god all come from the same culture and that cultures that didn't come in contact with them have absolutely no knowledge of him. The archaeology suggests that there has never been a massive flood that wiped out all of humanity except for one family- certainly not recently. If we go back the 2 million years as you suggest, the archaeology suggests that the technology levels in the story did not exist any more than my cell phone did. The science suggests that a worldwide flood on the scale the story says is impossible and if one were to somehow happen through magic Noah and family would have died no matter how big their boat was as well as virtually every plant, sea animal and freshwater animal on the planet. There is no evidence of such a massive event. Godsuse did a good job laying our many of the scientific problems with the story.

And what statistical inference do you have? The story, even if true, is statistically exceedingly unlikely.

All you have is the bible and your personal feelings. You have already admitted that at least parts of the bible are less than completely accurate, which should lead us to be a little more skeptical of other claims it makes that can't be verified. And do I really need to explain how humans can easily be misled by their personal feelings?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

in reference to your special pleading case:  God says he would never drown the world again being 100% accurate... and if that's true, then we can prove it by looking at a rainbow.  what physical manifestation can we look at today to prove that Noah was or was not a farmer?   Nice try though..  what else do you want to say I'm using special pleading for?  

What does a rainbow prove?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Again, it was not an eye witness account.  Also consider that if God is real, He's going to make sure the important parts of scripture are accurate... how detrimental to the Christian faith is it that Noah farmed and got drunk???  Let's compare to how detrimental it is to the Chirsitan faith that God promised not to flood the Earth again?  There's ... I don't know... maybe a smidgen more weight to one of those... whaddya think?

I think that an omnipotent God would make sure his biography was accurate in all details if he was really concerned with people believing in him. How important the details are to the reader are irrelevant to whether or not they are true. If there is a god, whether or not he is going to come kill all of us is very important to me. I am not reassured that he won't because a book says he said he wouldn't, especially when that book is demonstrably inaccurate on other details. If I were an omnipotent god, I would understand why someone would be concerned about that and come down to clear that misunderstanding up. Of course, it is rather arrogant to think that an omnipotent being would consider our lives as important as we consider them to be. I don't even expect other humans to consider my life to be as important as it is to me.

caposkia wrote:
 

caposkia wrote:

What your claiming is not at all what I was saying.  It is generally known that the Bible stories were very carefully translated from one scribe to the next... in fact they are understood to be the most congruent through the generations compared to other writings that were translated in the same manner... google it.

Quote:

That is completely irrelevant to how the story might have changed before it was written down and you are claiming the events happened millions of years before they were written down the first time.

not irrelevant.  If there was that much care to scribing it, why would there be any less care in passing it down?  How can you conclude otherwise?

No matter how good your memory is, memorizing a story is not as accurate as writing it down. That is the whole reason that humans started writing down records of things that happen. They had to take great care in the scribing process and errors did happen, at which point they would destroy it and do it again. Such a process of double and triple checking is not possible with thoughts like it is with written words. And you have already admitted that the story changed before it was written and the writer was using "what they know" as opposed to what actually was in the context of Noah being a farmer, so it seems pointless to claim that the story has flawlessly been passed down orally through millions of years now. Especially since the language it was written in did not exist when the event happened.   

 

caposkia wrote:
 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No it doesn't support the Bible. You are claiming that it had to have happened millions of years earlier and these huts were built around 20,000 BC. Not out of brick, but with layers of clay with uncut stone and pebbles mixed in and primarily out of brush. And this is the oldest such structure ever found. And as you point out, that particular hut was unique from what was primarily used (probably because hauling giant pieces of stone around was very difficult). There is no evidence that strong houses were built prior, the evidence we have suggests that a few people lived in caves and other such natural shelters but most people were nomadic. 

I know you don't want it to, but evidence suggests in your article.  A strong house is a strong house built.  There is reason to believe that our ancestors lived in caves, but there's also reason to believe we were tree dwelling creatures and actually lived ate and slept in trees... Are you telling me not one of them constructed some sort of shelter from a storm using the resources readily available?  Even current day tree dwelling creatures do that, I want to see your research that suggests otherwise.

Yes, a strong house was built and it is the first example of a strong house ever being built. Millions of years after you claim that humans built cities of strong houses. It would be like me saying that evidence of rotary phones existing 30 years ago is proof that someone could have called Socrates on the phone. My point was that prior to that, there is no evidence of humans building such stable shelters and they tended to be made of brush or natural shelters like caves. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I start with the story because that is the topic of discussion and I am cross referencing with other stories that are scripturally related and use logical inference to determine the reason and cause certain things happen or were claimed as such.  I have given a clear explanation of how writers in ancient times tend to reference to their present time names and technology when reiterating an older story passed down.  This allows the hearer to better understand what was happening and this is seen throughout ancient texts.  You try to put a square peg in a round hole by suggesting we need to take it literally after hearing that evidence.

You are using other parts of the story to prove the story. You don't see the problem with that?

 

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm sorry.. what pages were you referring to so i can answer to that directly?  I'm assuming you looked it up in the Archaeological study Bible that was mentioned and saw something that suggests a YEC pov, which possibly is there.    From what i saw, I only found cross references to other extra-Biblical texts that referenced to a flood of the same magnitude...  

I know you weren't making an assumption without doing the research first... riiiiiighht????

The only evidence you have linked to was a YECer (Andrew Snelling) in the other thread which you pointed to as proof that a worldwide flood happened. Do you have other archaeological evidence of the flood? If you have it, stop hiding it. I read archaeological journals on occasion, I have never come across one which validated anything supernatural that has occurred in the bible. There is evidence that some of the places were real and perhaps some of the people or similar people. There is none which supports any of the supernatural claims and none which supports the flood story in particular. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I have presented you many evidences including translational and cultural yet you keep coming back with no evidence claims.  You also don't yet want to move on to other stories with better explanations of scenarios to compare to.  I get that you're bent on disproving my understanding, but you need to use a bit of rational thinking before you loose all credibility.

Translational isn't evidence. You can't use the bible to prove the bible is true. I'm not terribly worried about losing credibility, I think my credibility is just fine to any educated lurker out there. I'm not moving on to other stories because I don't want to hijack this thread from the initial topic which was the flood. Our other thread has covered a wide variety of topics, all of which you have the same amount of evidence- nothing but stories and the ones that are falsifiable were easily proven false.  

 

caposkia wrote:

you added infants.  you also make an assumption that:

1. innocents were killed

2. God was responsible for them

3.  God killed them.  

How do you know that people didn't kill all their young ones before the flood in hopes to appease their gods and be saved?  Considering the level of evil claimed, that might not be a far fetched assumption.. an assumption none the less but no more of an assumption than what you've been trying to use to base your conclusion.

The story says that God killed them. The only thing I am assuming is that infants existed and since humans have not spontaneously started appearing as adults that is about as big an assumption as assuming that the people drank water and ate food. This point is kind of moot though because you have already stated multiple times that you apparently don't have a problem with God murdering children to punish adults. I started this conversation with the assumption that you were a generally moral and decent person. That assumption was a bad one. In your reply to Robby and the hypothetical you suggest it is clear to me that you are an extremely immoral person.

caposkia wrote:

you mean are going through it... or are you suggesting I have this?  I'm at peace in the matter.  I'm trying to grasp from your perspective how I can rationalize what you're telling me... I still can't.  There's not enough rational conclusions to base your understanding on from what i can see.  I still see the parents fully responsible for the death of the innocent children you speak of.  We in this country may have laws that allows some of the blame to be put elsewhere, but consider that in any situation where a human being is not the source of the danger and yet a child is killed because of it, the care taker is to blame regardless of what it may be or how it may have happend.  Gods laws do not allow many to hold blame for what one person did.  Instead it falls completely on their shoulders.  e.g. a police officer might have shot a child, but the parent who brought their child to the gunfight when they had the opportunity for the child to be no where near the gunfight is fully responsible for what happens to that child.  To associate it further with the story, the parent also had the opportunity to make better choices considering the family they had to look after so as to not cause a reason for a conflict with the police to happen in the first place.  Still fully on the parent according to Gods laws.    Even still, the parent still had a choice when then confrontation began to realize their child was with them and take action to keep their child safe.  Best choice in this metaphorical story would be to not pick a fight with the police and accept the consequences for your actions.

I started this because I couldn't understand how you could believe God is good and be a moral person. In this reply to Robby it is crystal clear to me that you are not moral and you do not hold god to moral standards. A police officer who intentionally shoots a child is immoral regardless of how terrible that child's parents are.  

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't know how many more ways I can explain it to you.  

maybe this using your scenario.  if your abusive neighbor ended up killing their children and you did nothing about it, but knew about it, should you be held responsible for their deaths?  By your knowledge you would be an accessory.  but by your logic you'd be innocent.  

No, my logic has been quite consistent. Killing the child to stop the abuse would be immoral.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
As the Alaskans say and/or you can go mechanical

  RE ::  As the Alaskans say and/or you can go mechanical

 


S e e  Uploaded image . . Specialized  farm related tool .. yes !

 

[URL][IMG=http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7128/31t7.jpg][/IMG][/URL]



 

 



Maybe this should go to another thread . . maybe   See :: Image.  But, I honestly  doubt he'd see it . .

 Genetichumanimigrationf.jpg

[URL][IMG==http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/genetichumanimigrationf.jpg][/IMG][/URL]



 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

cj wrote:

When do you think the flood happened? (You may have said, but truthfully, I don't remember.)

Briefly, Egypt. The Egyptians were taxed based on the height of the Nile flood in that year. Because the amount of land inundated determined how much in the way of crops the farmers could produce. So we have found records of the Nile flood heights for thousands of years. There are no large gaps in this record. The recorded flood levels (that did NOT kill every Egyptian) continue uninterrupted for all those years.

If the entire world flooded, you would think there would be a gap in the record? Yes? At least a few years as the area was repopulated and the tax collectors got their act back together. No such gap in the record. No mention of a world wide flood that killed off all of the people.

My mom also declared me guilty before punishing me - and then she cried while and after whaling the tar out of me. Screwed me up big time - took years of therapy to get over it.

 

We've estimated based on evidence presented on this thread that it possibly could have happened upwards of 2 million years ago.  Egypt would not have been established yet.

Nor would Homosapiens. 

except that these non-homosapiens apparently made their own tools.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:caposkia

RobbyPants wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Logically, he could have used a sniper rifle... but if your goal was to take out thousands of people... do you really want to sit there and snipe each one of them? Let's think about this. If you had a mission to take out 1000's of people and chose to snipe them all, you'll likely find that you'd end up sniping the children that ultimately turned into adults before you were done with the population you originally sent out to destroy.

You're missing the point of the analogy. The point of differentiating between sniper rifle and C4 was to differentiate between selecting targets or hitting them all. We don't particularly care if God has one target or a thousand; he's God and he could simultaneously snipe them all.

That is definitely special pleading though on your part.  God could have done this so because He did it differently He's wrong and evil.  

You forget the original intention of the event... that God intended to wipe out humanity.  

RobbyPants wrote:


In the flood story, people are distinctly split into two groups: wicked and not wicked. You have two choices:

1) Declare the children wicked and worthy of death, which is creepy, or

2) Declare the children not wicked and claim that they were collateral damage. This gets back to the sniper rifle and C4 analogy. God could have killed all the wicked people and no others, but he didn't

The Bible declared that there was only evil in their hearts... What was happening to children at that time?  if you can answer that, then you have grounds for your case.

RobbyPants wrote:


Your two options are that the children themselves were wicked and deserved death (creepy) or that they weren't, but God killed them anyway (God is creepy). That's it. There's no magical third answer. You can place all the blame you want on the parents, but concerning God, you have two options.

so there's no possibility that the evil of the adults in that world could have been to the extreme where they were sacrificing, raping and killing eating etc children?  

Likewise, you can put the blame on God all you want but concerning reality, you have 1 option.  parents are responsible for their children and what happens to them.  There's no way you can argue your way out of it in our world today, there's no way you can argue your way out of it in this scenario.  To blame God here is no better than a believer justifying anything by saying "God did it"..

RobbyPants wrote:



caposkia wrote:
The problem is you can't blame someone "more" someone is guilty and someone is not. Who brought upon themselves the flood... or any destruction through the judgement of God?

Yes you can. God is in complete control here.

God is in complete control yes, but in that control God has allowed people to make choices for themselves... He has also allowed people to reap the consequences for those choices good or bad.  By that justification I could go out and murder my neighbor, then when questioned about it I can say.  "God's in complete control... He could have stopped me."  Is that logical?

RobbyPants wrote:


caposkia wrote:
First you have to suggest that the parents were not responsible for their children. You also have to suggest that God went beyond the law and destroyed humanity for no good reason which then would suggest that scripture was wrong to say that population was nothing but evil. You then need to suggest that God killing these children was worse off then letting them live which would then assume despite the evils this population had, the children were not being sacrificed, abused, raped, tortured, killed and eaten, turned into slaves etc. and that there was no where else for them to go. This would also assume that God when 'killing" the children left their souls to despair and did not bring them into heaven for eternity. This is also assuming there were a lot of children left living after sacrifices, beatings etc that might have killed off many already. I could go on, but you get the point.

That's not what special pleading means.

actually all of that fits into the first sentence of your link:  "...is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details..."  (ie.  children)  "...by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations.  Essentially this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc.  without justifying the exception>"  (here it would be the children though none are mentioned in scripture nor the number of surviving at the tiem of the flood and whether they were actually alive and not old enough to be considered evil)

Here you would argue that it is generally accepted that children are innocent.  I would argue that scripture has mentioned nothing of the children and all other examples in scripture shows God giving innocents a way out of the destruction.  e.g. Noah and his family in this case.  (Key here is "without justifying the exception".  I'm justifying with cross references to other events where God destroyed a population, what are you justifying with?)

Let's really take this into today's world.  There are cultures that the united states has fought against that have put machine guns into childrens hands and those children have (without fully understanding mind you) gone out in an attempt to kill American soldiers.  why?  Their adult counterparts told them that American soliders were evil and need to die.  Is it justified then for an American soldier to shoot and kill those children or should they just let them mow american troops down?  

If you go as far as infants, what was preventing an evil population who likely had many other god beliefs to sacrifice those infants in hopes of saving humanity?  If you can answer that with sources, I will accept your perspective as true.  Otherwise, I would expect you to admit to special pleading.  (me special pleading?  I'm using history as a source that these events have occured many many times in history and logical deduction to conclude that a culture defined as pure evil would likely have many of the same habits)

RobbyPants wrote:



caposkia wrote:
you mean are going through it... or are you suggesting I have this? I'm at peace in the matter. I'm trying to grasp from your perspective how I can rationalize what you're telling me... I still can't. There's not enough rational conclusions to base your understanding on from what i can see. I still see the parents fully responsible for the death of the innocent children you speak of. We in this country may have laws that allows some of the blame to be put elsewhere, but consider that in any situation where a human being is not the source of the danger and yet a child is killed because of it, the care taker is to blame regardless of what it may be or how it may have happend. Gods laws do not allow many to hold blame for what one person did. Instead it falls completely on their shoulders. e.g. a police officer might have shot a child, but the parent who brought their child to the gunfight when they had the opportunity for the child to be no where near the gunfight is fully responsible for what happens to that child. To associate it further with the story, the parent also had the opportunity to make better choices considering the family they had to look after so as to not cause a reason for a conflict with the police to happen in the first place. Still fully on the parent according to Gods laws. Even still, the parent still had a choice when then confrontation began to realize their child was with them and take action to keep their child safe. Best choice in this metaphorical story would be to not pick a fight with the police and accept the consequences for your actions. In the flood story, ask of God for forgiveness at least so as to allow their children to survive.

Still none of it happened despite happening in other stories. I have other examples (stories) to back it up, what do you have?

You.

thanks for admitting you have nothing to base it on... if it's me, then you must be accepting my position.

RobbyPants wrote:


You are doing it again. To try and justify your "blame just the parents and not God" position, you keep using an analogy where God is likened to a human police officer, complete with human limitations. You do not believe this. You go not believe that your god is a fallible human. You believe he is quite powerful (all powerful?) and capable of all of the wonders of the Bible. You believe he is capable of precision striking people when it suits him (as is evidenced in various stories in the Bible where one person is singled out). Yet, to remove any culpability from God, you put this all on hold, compare him to a human, and attempt to absolve him from any responsibility. You cannot have it both ways. Either God is great and is capable of more than a police officer or he is not. He isn't great and powerful, except when dispensing death to kids.

This is why I'm saying you're suffering from cognitive dissonance. You see the inherent problems with an all-loving God doling out death to children to punish their wicked parents, and this is how you attempt to remove the dissonance. The normal, rational responses are to remove one of the two competing issues (either admit that God isn't all-loving or dismiss the flood story as having never happened). You, instead, are taking the path of psychological least resistance, and are trying to create an illusion where God is all-loving and where the flood story totally happened.

I have only used others analogies that have come up on this site.  Let's not compare God to humanistic standards then.  That will make it a lot easier.  Gods intention was to destroy humanity because generations of people have ended up being nothing but evil.  There was "no good left in them".  Thus he very effectively destroyed humanity.  If God is as you say, you have no authority to place blame anywhere but people be it that God created humanity for better reasons than what they have become, therefore humanity had doomed themselves to destruction and the one who created them has the authority and right to do so.  This creator has the right to destroy humanity and everything else without reason or warning and yet still warned people and gave signs that such events were going to take place.   People will think that's evil, but never consider that when compared to the same circumstances reflected on themselves.  Its' a double standard.  God does not abide by double standards... 

The capabilities of God are so great that it would be no worse for God to start over than to keep an evil race going.  If God is all-loving, would He leave hundreds, possibly thousands of children to fend for themselves ultimately to meet their demise in a worse way than drowning?  Special pleading would say He could provide for them until they're old enough, but then why not just destroy everyone who does something wrong the second they do it?  Would you think of God as more or less evil if He did that?  be careful, your answer might end up being contradictory depending.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 

For me to  suggest that God was justified in his actions, all I need to do is reference other parts of scripture where God reigned justice on a population and has a better explanation of why and what was happening... also in each scenario off the top of my head, He spared all that were innocent.  This leads me to logically conclude that the flood story was no different.  

all in all, you have to make a lot of assumptions to conclude God was unjust in His actions... you have to "plead" scenarios that can only be hypothetical based on nothing scripture or any other source says.

I am hardly a biblical scholar but one of the first things that came to my mind was Exodus. Had to google it to find the exact spot, but 

Exodus 12:29 wrote:

At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

yes, that's another example of God sealing the fate of the choices people made... in this case Pharaoh.  To put this story in context;

1.  Pharaoh's father had done that very same action to God's people 2 times a generation earlier, but on top of that, enslaved them, children and all... read Exodus 1:8-22.

2.  Pharaoh knew of the plagues that were to come on his people, but chose to ignore the warnings until it affected him directly.  The only thing that really mattered to the pharaoh was his son.  (e.g. Pharaoh, seeing the plagues were actually happening had several opportunities to stop that final plague from happening just by letting Gods people go free, but the Pharaoh made the choice to let it happen.  This plague of the death of all the male firstborns was not set in stone and was dependent on the choice of the Pharaoh. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Another case, off the top of my head which hasn't bothered memorizing the whole bible, where God killed innocents. He also used the sniper approach to pick off only the innocents. If he flooded the place, he might have killed the Pharaoh who had pissed him off too. Also, as usual God kills perfectly innocent animals on top of his slaughter of firstborns. 

And do I need to point out the numerous times throughout the bible where God ordered the slaughter of entire peoples including women and infants?

The one thing that is clear, when it comes to punishing people God has absolutely no problem with killing their families, often leaving the person his vengeance is against alive. He obviously has no problem with killing innocents throughout the bible for no sin greater than being born to the wrong father. Did you conveniently forget those stories too?

 

I have not, let's talk about those too... reference them please?  God chose to kill firstborn males as the final plague probably because that was the very thing the pharaoh's family had done to Gods people more than once.... again on top of that the Pharaoh was forcing children old enough to walk to labor.  That obviously would have continued through Pharaoh's son as well by means of logical deduction.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:One of

Beyond Saving wrote:

One of the reasons grapes are the primary choice for wine is that they are so efficient at making alcohol. It takes roughly 3 pounds of strawberries to make the same amount of wine. If you want to go the cider route, it takes about 10 pounds of apples to make one gallon of cider. Whatever fruit you want to choose, you would have to eat an inhuman amount of rotten fruit to get a good buzz.

It is not well known that animals get drunk eating overripe fruits. Those claims are an internet legend that has gone around and are completely false. Perhaps the best known example is the video of the Elephants supposedly getting drunk off of Marula fruit. That particular video was faked by sedating the Elephants beforehand. Actual scientific studies have proven the whole concept false. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/499983 

The only wild animals that have been demonstrated to get high alcohol content in their blood are birds, bats and the pen-tailed tree shrew. Which makes sense because birds and bats have very light body weights compared to the amount of food they can eat. The shrew manages to consume significant amounts of alcohol because the bertam palm produces nectar that has a 3.2% alcohol content. Monkeys in cities have been known to get drunk from stealing human made alcohol from unwary tourists, but never in the wild from eating fruit. Don't believe everything you see on youtube. 

I don't, but did you look into it at all or just conclude based on previous understanding that it must be false?

Beyond Saving wrote:

So now you are saying Noah existed 10 million years ago? We keep pushing this back and Noah is going to be riding a T-Rex.  

is that what your suggesting?  I never said that.  But being well versed in the nutrition field people today can have a metabolism that doesn't allow them to digest alcohol appropriately, so why would it be impossible for a person like Noah 2 million years ago to be just as suseptible?  I would dare to even suggest that it could be more likely then.

Beyond Saving wrote:

We know general tools existed long before there is any evidence of farming whatsoever. Humans used tools when they were nomadic and it is pretty safe to assume that when humans were nomadic they did not farm since farming requires fairly consistent attention. The first evidence we have of farming is at Ohalo II and it isn't farm tools. They collected large amounts of seeds and had large amounts of grain in storage, the seeds had apparently been dried, so the assumption is that they were farming because there isn't much reason to collect a pile of seeds if you don't plan on planting them and drying seeds by a fire or in the sun was the first step for preserving them to be planted next year. (If seeds stay wet they tend to develop mold and will not grow when you plant them next year.) This was dated slightly after 20,000 BC. I think it is safe to assume that they used some form of tools, we know they had crude axes and spears, and it isn't a huge leap to assume that whoever was digging up the soil realized it would be easier not using their hands. Specialized farming tools such as sickles, spades, scythes etc. took a bit more time to appear. We know when people started farming because we can tell what they stored, whether they stayed at the same location permanently and what they ate.  

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4256914?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102622508601

my grandfather was a farmer as well... most of his plants were planted by either natural gestation or by extracting the seeds from the final few batches before winter and storing them.  Granted his storage was miniscule and kept in a drawer, but he also was only farming for the family and was not selling or providing for the community.  I wonder if such a small amount of seed storage would be able to be found if it was happening 2 milliion years ago... I think i can safely assume... NO.   To store to the abundance of what was found in your reference, there must have been a long time of farming prior to to come to the understanding of how to store seeds. 

There are also people thorughout history who did not settle in one location for long periods, but would settle for seasons... plant foods, and then take the seeds to their new location and plant again.  consider the Native American tribes... yes some were settled, but some constantly traveled yet were still known to plant things.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am assuming for the sake of discussion that the story is accurate because you claim it is accurate. I am pointing out the huge flaws in the story which makes it unlikely. I have provided you with significant amounts of evidence to support the problems I have pointed out in the story. The only evidence you have presented is the story itself and your rationalization of it. You are now admitting that parts of the story are absolutely false. So why should I believe the rest of the story that has zero supporting evidence?

I have admitted that these stories have the same flaws as most other ancient scripts of the tiem.  that does not suggest I claimed they were false.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have no history, archaeology, science or statistical inference. At least none you have presented here. The history strongly suggests that the stories of the Abrahamic god all come from the same culture and that cultures that didn't come in contact with them have absolutely no knowledge of him. The archaeology suggests that there has never been a massive flood that wiped out all of humanity except for one family- certainly not recently. If we go back the 2 million years as you suggest, the archaeology suggests that the technology levels in the story did not exist any more than my cell phone did. The science suggests that a worldwide flood on the scale the story says is impossible and if one were to somehow happen through magic Noah and family would have died no matter how big their boat was as well as virtually every plant, sea animal and freshwater animal on the planet. There is no evidence of such a massive event. Godsuse did a good job laying our many of the scientific problems with the story.

And what statistical inference do you have? The story, even if true, is statistically exceedingly unlikely.

All you have is the bible and your personal feelings. You have already admitted that at least parts of the bible are less than completely accurate, which should lead us to be a little more skeptical of other claims it makes that can't be verified. And do I really need to explain how humans can easily be misled by their personal feelings?

I have presented historical reference to other ancient scripts and also language research along with cultural understanding

Archaeology does not suggest ever that something didn't happen, rather only suggests what could have happened if evidence suggests it.... therefore:

      A.  archaeology has never suggested that a flood didn't happen and actually has shown evidence of other floods that suggest such a flood could have been possible.

     B.  archaeology can only suggest that thing existed at least as far back as X... in no way does that suggest that it didn't exist before, rather the evidence found only shows to that point in history.

Also I have agreed with you that there is no evidence that we can see of with the flood... which is why I find it hard to believe that people can be so sure this never happened.  No evidence in no way is ever a basis for conclusion, rather a reason to do further research.  

You say all I have is the Bible and my personal feelings.  My personal feelings have not always supported my belief, so then I guess all I have is the Bible... backed up with history, archaeology, science, etc.  But because you're set on determining what I have, you know there's nothing more.  

It would be wise to do your homework on this subject if you're going to be so conclusive.  You might be surprised at what you find.  If what I believe is false, then what I'm asking you to do is very daring of me because that would reveal something you and others claim I'm trying to hide.  You could be the one who cracks the case.

Beyond Saving wrote:

What does a rainbow prove?

According to scripture in this case, it is the covenant between man and God.    We have to go by scripture be it that this is the source of the debate.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I think that an omnipotent God would make sure his biography was accurate in all details if he was really concerned with people believing in him. How important the details are to the reader are irrelevant to whether or not they are true. If there is a god, whether or not he is going to come kill all of us is very important to me. I am not reassured that he won't because a book says he said he wouldn't, especially when that book is demonstrably inaccurate on other details. If I were an omnipotent god, I would understand why someone would be concerned about that and come down to clear that misunderstanding up. Of course, it is rather arrogant to think that an omnipotent being would consider our lives as important as we consider them to be. I don't even expect other humans to consider my life to be as important as it is to me.

that's where people I think misunderstand God.  God is not concerned with people "believing in Him".  He is concerned about people building a relationship with Him.  I understand why if there is a God why it would be important to know beyond scripture whether God would destroy you or not... but you have to think of a few things... what are the errors in scripture and do they change the core beliefs and understanding of the followers of this God?  Also, God came down through His son Jesus Christ.  Jesus said, "if you know me, you know my father."  in other words, He did exactly what you suggested He should do, if you read the gospels, you will find that Jesus took a lot of time clarifying things that were blatently misunderstood by the Jews.  

the thing with God is we understand that God values our lives more than we could ever possibly value our own lives, let alone others around us.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

No matter how good your memory is, memorizing a story is not as accurate as writing it down. That is the whole reason that humans started writing down records of things that happen. They had to take great care in the scribing process and errors did happen, at which point they would destroy it and do it again. Such a process of double and triple checking is not possible with thoughts like it is with written words. And you have already admitted that the story changed before it was written and the writer was using "what they know" as opposed to what actually was in the context of Noah being a farmer, so it seems pointless to claim that the story has flawlessly been passed down orally through millions of years now. Especially since the language it was written in did not exist when the event happened.   

You're looking at this as if none of it was ever written down until it was compiled and scribed... that's simply not true.  Scraps were used to keep parts of the story accurate here and there.  The scribes ultimately took the scraps and complied them into a whole story.  they took the process of similarties and differences and ultimately compiled a story that made sense and was consistent with most of the texts in hand.  Some of it was likely completely by word of mouth, but if anyone found it of importance, they would have notated it somewhere so as to not forget.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, a strong house was built and it is the first example of a strong house ever being built. Millions of years after you claim that humans built cities of strong houses. It would be like me saying that evidence of rotary phones existing 30 years ago is proof that someone could have called Socrates on the phone. My point was that prior to that, there is no evidence of humans building such stable shelters and they tended to be made of brush or natural shelters like caves. 

...but again, no evidence is never a reason to conclude anything

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are using other parts of the story to prove the story. You don't see the problem with that?

not when one story is known to consist of sometimes hundreds of separate unrelated scripts.  This is why people claim the Bible supports itself.  A story is a compilation of years of texts compiled.  Usually not from the same source.

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm sorry.. what pages were you referring to so i can answer to that directly?  I'm assuming you looked it up in the Archaeological study Bible that was mentioned and saw something that suggests a YEC pov, which possibly is there.    From what i saw, I only found cross references to other extra-Biblical texts that referenced to a flood of the same magnitude...  

I know you weren't making an assumption without doing the research first... riiiiiighht????

The only evidence you have linked to was a YECer (Andrew Snelling) in the other thread which you pointed to as proof that a worldwide flood happened. Do you have other archaeological evidence of the flood? If you have it, stop hiding it. I read archaeological journals on occasion, I have never come across one which validated anything supernatural that has occurred in the bible. There is evidence that some of the places were real and perhaps some of the people or similar people. There is none which supports any of the supernatural claims and none which supports the flood story in particular. 

you never referenced it... can you reference it?  The only thing you're claiming I'm hiding is what you seem to suggest you researched... you're likely hiding it then.  please reference the pages so i can answer to it directly

Beyond Saving wrote:

Translational isn't evidence. You can't use the bible to prove the bible is true. I'm not terribly worried about losing credibility, I think my credibility is just fine to any educated lurker out there. I'm not moving on to other stories because I don't want to hijack this thread from the initial topic which was the flood. Our other thread has covered a wide variety of topics, all of which you have the same amount of evidence- nothing but stories and the ones that are falsifiable were easily proven false.  

sometimes when talking about one story, you need to reference to others.. I'm not asking you to start discussing other stories and abandon the flood story.   I'm asking you to reference in context and use them to support your conclusion.  

Again, if all these were easily proven false, then why are we still talking? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

The story says that God killed them. The only thing I am assuming is that infants existed and since humans have not spontaneously started appearing as adults that is about as big an assumption as assuming that the people drank water and ate food. This point is kind of moot though because you have already stated multiple times that you apparently don't have a problem with God murdering children to punish adults. I started this conversation with the assumption that you were a generally moral and decent person. That assumption was a bad one. In your reply to Robby and the hypothetical you suggest it is clear to me that you are an extremely immoral person.

The story says God destroyed humanity.   Again you added infants... what did the people do to the infants and how many were left for God to kill in the flood?  if you can't answer that, then you can't assume God killed infants... I get your logical deduction, but what does logical deduction say about a society that had nothing but evil in their hearts?  That to me suggests that if infants were surviving, they didn't for very long anyway unless they managed to be spared by the gods.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I started this because I couldn't understand how you could believe God is good and be a moral person. In this reply to Robby it is crystal clear to me that you are not moral and you do not hold god to moral standards. A police officer who intentionally shoots a child is immoral regardless of how terrible that child's parents are.  

yes, intentionally shoots a child I agree.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't know how many more ways I can explain it to you.  

maybe this using your scenario.  if your abusive neighbor ended up killing their children and you did nothing about it, but knew about it, should you be held responsible for their deaths?  By your knowledge you would be an accessory.  but by your logic you'd be innocent.  

No, my logic has been quite consistent. Killing the child to stop the abuse would be immoral.  

I never said you had to kill the child


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:yes, that's

caposkia wrote:

yes, that's another example of God sealing the fate of the choices people made... in this case Pharaoh.  To put this story in context;

Oh this is going to be good... or depressing.

 

caposkia wrote:

1.  Pharaoh's father had done that very same action to God's people 2 times a generation earlier, but on top of that, enslaved them, children and all... read Exodus 1:8-22.

How does that matter at all? Morality isn't multiplication, two negatives do not make a positive. I'll agree, the Pharaoh was an extreme asshole according to the story. How does that justify killing a bunch of children who had nothing to do with the Pharaoh?

 

caposkia wrote:

2.  Pharaoh knew of the plagues that were to come on his people, but chose to ignore the warnings until it affected him directly.  The only thing that really mattered to the pharaoh was his son.  (e.g. Pharaoh, seeing the plagues were actually happening had several opportunities to stop that final plague from happening just by letting Gods people go free, but the Pharaoh made the choice to let it happen.  This plague of the death of all the male firstborns was not set in stone and was dependent on the choice of the Pharaoh.

How does that justify god murdering all the children? Obviously, the Pharaoh didn't give a shit about them, God, being GOD, would have known that. He would have realized he was dealing with a sociopath on a power trip. You don't threaten a sociopath with killing a bunch of people that are not him, he will say "go ahead, I don't care." It even specifically says it even killed the first borns of people in prison. I imagine the people in prison were not big supporters of the Pharaoh since... well he was the one who threw them in prison. So why did God put the fate of innocents in the hands of a tyrannical man he knew didn't care about them?

Maybe the Pharaoh did give a shit about his own son. Killing his son might be an effective (albeit still immoral) way to make the point. But why include all the extra collateral damage of people who did nothing wrong except happen to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

caposkia wrote:

Quote:

And do I need to point out the numerous times throughout the bible where God ordered the slaughter of entire peoples including women and infants?

I have not, let's talk about those too... reference them please?  

1 Samuel 15?

Quote:

Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” 

 

caposkia wrote:

God chose to kill firstborn males as the final plague probably because that was the very thing the pharaoh's family had done to Gods people more than once.... again on top of that the Pharaoh was forcing children old enough to walk to labor.  That obviously would have continued through Pharaoh's son as well by means of logical deduction.  

So why didn't God kill just the Pharaoh and the Pharaoh's son? He killed the victims rather than the perpetrator. Do you think that is just? Apparently, God thinks killing innocent children is a good way to get people to do what he wants. I think that is immoral and my original point was that killing innocent children is a method God has used to enforce his idea of justice more than once, which is contrary to your claim that God always spared innocents. He clearly has no problem with collateral damage.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I don't, but

caposkia wrote:

I don't, but did you look into it at all or just conclude based on previous understanding that it must be false?

I'll admit, you have such a horrendous track record that whenever you use the phrase "it is well known" that whatever follows it is probably completely false. Since I am someone who spends a very significant amount of time studying animals in their natural habitats and have never seen one drunk, I was highly skeptical of your claim about what is "well known". Sure enough, I spent the better part of an hour researching to find out that my initial reaction was correct. I provided a link to the most relevant authoritative source I came across. I found several other experts who said more or less the same thing, this is the first attempt of seen to actually scientifically demonstrate it is impossible.  

 

caposkia wrote:

my grandfather was a farmer as well... most of his plants were planted by either natural gestation or by extracting the seeds from the final few batches before winter and storing them.  Granted his storage was miniscule and kept in a drawer, but he also was only farming for the family and was not selling or providing for the community.  I wonder if such a small amount of seed storage would be able to be found if it was happening 2 milliion years ago... I think i can safely assume... NO.   To store to the abundance of what was found in your reference, there must have been a long time of farming prior to to come to the understanding of how to store seeds. 

We can pretty safely assume....YES since we have fairly significant evidence at a variety of finds where we can analyze what people ate at various periods throughout history. We have found bones damaged from human teeth or tools, we have found evidence of foraging, we have found the refuse they left on cave floors, we have found evidence of the domestication of dogs, we have not found evidence of farming. You would be amazed what we can learn from an archaeological site and determine from the remains of a body.

We also have other methods of determining approximately when different plants started being farmed. You see, when you are preserving seeds and planting them, you tend to have a lot of plants that are genetically similar in a smaller geographical space than is likely by the pure chance the seeds rely on without human intervention. The result is a genetic trail that we can follow that helps us estimate when different crops were being planted regularly.

The reality is that we are dealing with spotty information since it takes a certain amount of luck for us to find these sites and for them to be preserved enough to get accurate information from them. So our guesses are in a broad range. No one is going to be terribly stunned if we find a site a thousand years older that has evidence of farming. If you were claiming that farming was occurring in 22,000 BC- I would find that to be plausible. It very well might have taken a couple thousand years for farming to really become routine and it is possible we just haven't found the right sites. You are telling me that it was occurring 2 million years earlier- that is a huge difference and a gigantic leap to make without any supporting evidence whatsoever. If farming had occurred for 2 million years it is extremely improbable that we wouldn't have found some evidence of it.

 

caposkia wrote:
  

There are also people thorughout history who did not settle in one location for long periods, but would settle for seasons... plant foods, and then take the seeds to their new location and plant again.  consider the Native American tribes... yes some were settled, but some constantly traveled yet were still known to plant things.

And we have plenty of archaeological evidence from those cultures. There is a whole branch of the field that does little more than study how corn was spread throughout North America by those cultures and through a variety of techniques and sources we can track fairly accurately how, where and when it spread. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I have admitted that these stories have the same flaws as most other ancient scripts of the tiem.  that does not suggest I claimed they were false.

You conceded that Noah did not plant a vineyard and didn't drink wine. Therefore, you have conceded that this particular portion of the story is false. Whether you want to chalk it up as artistic license or whatnot is irrelevant. The story is not 100% accurate. Therefore, an intelligent person would question whether other parts of the story were also changed. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I have presented historical reference to other ancient scripts and also language research along with cultural understanding

You have presented the Bible. 

caposkia wrote:

Archaeology does not suggest ever that something didn't happen, rather only suggests what could have happened if evidence suggests it.... therefore:

      A.  archaeology has never suggested that a flood didn't happen and actually has shown evidence of other floods that suggest such a flood could have been possible.

     B.  archaeology can only suggest that thing existed at least as far back as X... in no way does that suggest that it didn't exist before, rather the evidence found only shows to that point in history.

A. You can't prove negatives. Any negative. You can't prove that I am not Jesus Christ who is secretly testing your faith. However, we can be extremely certain that certain things did not happen because there is no evidence and we would expect to find evidence if they did happen. There is evidence of other floods. We have evidence of many floods throughout history. Since we so easily find evidence of smaller floods, we would expect to find evidence of a worldwide flood if one ever happened. We haven't found it. That is a good reason to be skeptical of the story. 

B. I addressed this slightly above. It is difficult to get exact dates of when things were invented/discovered because by its nature archaeology is a field where we have only a few puzzle pieces and a lot of holes. But we can get in the ball park. When we are talking about something that occurred 20,000 years ago, no one is going to be surprised if we find out we were a couple thousand of years off. Such inaccuracy is expected when you are dealing with missing so much information. However, it is another thing entirely to suggest that our estimates are off by 2 million years. That kind of revelation would be the archaeological equivalent of the sun rising in the west tomorrow morning , gravity suddenly disappearing or Obama peeling off his skin to show that the world really is ran by a race of lizard aliens.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Also I have agreed with you that there is no evidence that we can see of with the flood... which is why I find it hard to believe that people can be so sure this never happened.  No evidence in no way is ever a basis for conclusion, rather a reason to do further research.

We are doing further research... you are ignoring it because instead of looking at the puzzle pieces then attempting to determine what happened you already assumed the story and force the puzzle pieces to fit it or ignore them. And yes, lack of evidence is often the basis of a conclusion. If you reasonably expect to find evidence, it is not there and there is no plausible reason for it to be missing then one can conclude that it didn't happen. If I told you that a nuclear bomb blew up New York City and you traveled to New York City and there is no bomb damage, no radiation and people are walking around like normal, the lack of evidence that a nuclear bomb went off would lead you to the rational conclusion that I lied. (Talking of nuclear bombs and NYC hi NSA ) That is just one example of many. I'm sure you have used the same rational numerous times in your life to conclude that something did not happen. Is it possible that a bomb did blow up NYC and then some kind of time warp happened or we merged with an alternate dimension or (insert cheesy sci fi show explanation to undue damage)? Sure. You can't prove it didn't. But it would be borderline insane to actually believe and act as if it happened when there is no supporting evidence. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

You say all I have is the Bible and my personal feelings.  My personal feelings have not always supported my belief, so then I guess all I have is the Bible... backed up with history, archaeology, science, etc.  But because you're set on determining what I have, you know there's nothing more.

What archaeology? You just said

Quote:
 

Also I have agreed with you that there is no evidence that we can see of with the flood

So there is no archaeological evidence.

Scientific? By our current scientific understanding the flood is impossible. If is is possible, then everything we have determined scientifically regarding floods is wrong. History? All you have is the bible and people believing it which you say was written 2 million years after the flood. 

I am pretty sure you don't have more because you have failed to produce more. And so has every person I have ever had this discussion with. Since no one else has been able to produce evidence and everything I have read in archaeology suggests it never happened and my admittedly basic understanding of the science behind floods suggests that such an event would be impossible, yes I am quite confident that there is not more. I am more than happy to be proved wrong.  

 

caposkia wrote:

It would be wise to do your homework on this subject if you're going to be so conclusive.  You might be surprised at what you find.  If what I believe is false, then what I'm asking you to do is very daring of me because that would reveal something you and others claim I'm trying to hide.  You could be the one who cracks the case.

I have done a significant amount of homework. How do you think I am able to provide all those links to you? But why should I? You are the one claiming the story is true. You are the one who should have evidence supporting it. I shouldn't have to search for it. 

And no, it isn't daring of you at all. You simply change the story every time you run into a problem you can't skate around. Your story is not falsifiable, when means it cannot be proved false, because you have posited an omnipotent deity. By definition, an omnipotent deity could do anything including hiding all evidence of an event so that it could never be proved. I never accused you of hiding anything, I have accused you of being willfully blind to evidence that makes your story questionable.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What does a rainbow prove?

According to scripture in this case, it is the covenant between man and God.    We have to go by scripture be it that this is the source of the debate.

You can't use scripture as evidence that scripture is accurate. I am questioning the accuracy of scripture. We know what creates rainbows- google it.

 

caposkia wrote:

that's where people I think misunderstand God.  God is not concerned with people "believing in Him".  He is concerned about people building a relationship with Him.  I understand why if there is a God why it would be important to know beyond scripture whether God would destroy you or not... but you have to think of a few things... what are the errors in scripture and do they change the core beliefs and understanding of the followers of this God?  Also, God came down through His son Jesus Christ.  Jesus said, "if you know me, you know my father."  in other words, He did exactly what you suggested He should do, if you read the gospels, you will find that Jesus took a lot of time clarifying things that were blatently misunderstood by the Jews.

We don't know if it is accurate in regards to what God said or even in what Jesus said. For all we know, it is completely inaccurate. Since it is inaccurate about things we can verify, that should at least make us hesitant to unquestionably accept that it is a perfect transcript.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

the thing with God is we understand that God values our lives more than we could ever possibly value our own lives, let alone others around us.

Blatantly false even within the bible. You have said multiple times that God intended to wipe out humanity. Obviously, he thought people were better off dead. I imagine most of them didn't agree. Therefore, those humans valued their lives more than God did. Further evidence is the sheer amount of effort us humans put in to extending our lives while God does nothing. 

 

caposkia wrote:

You're looking at this as if none of it was ever written down until it was compiled and scribed... that's simply not true.  Scraps were used to keep parts of the story accurate here and there.  The scribes ultimately took the scraps and complied them into a whole story.  they took the process of similarties and differences and ultimately compiled a story that made sense and was consistent with most of the texts in hand.  Some of it was likely completely by word of mouth, but if anyone found it of importance, they would have notated it somewhere so as to not forget.

Well it certainly wasn't written down before the invention of writing. Writing wasn't invented until a little before 3,000 BC. There were some cultures that used symbols as early as 20,000 BC but they were pretty crude to be doing something as complicated as passing down a story accurately. You are telling me that the flood occurred 2 million years earlier, so clearly the story was not written down since writing didn't exist.

 

caposkia wrote:

...but again, no evidence is never a reason to conclude anything

Yes it is, again. I am God, if you don't send me $500 I am going to smite everyone on the planet. I have a small hunch you are not going to send me $5,000. Why? $500 is a small price to pay to save your own life and the whole world. And we have already established that as God the action is moral since I warned you. So why wouldn't you send me $500? Because there is no evidence that I am a god.   

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are using other parts of the story to prove the story. You don't see the problem with that?

not when one story is known to consist of sometimes hundreds of separate unrelated scripts.  This is why people claim the Bible supports itself.  A story is a compilation of years of texts compiled.  Usually not from the same source.

We aren't talking about different stories in the Bible. We are talking about events within the same story.

 

caposkia wrote:

you never referenced it... can you reference it?  The only thing you're claiming I'm hiding is what you seem to suggest you researched... you're likely hiding it then.  please reference the pages so i can answer to it directly

It was way back in the other thread and I'm not going to bother digging through it. If you have archaeological evidence you link me to it. So far you have not provided any except the work of Snelling. 

http://creation.com/andrew-a-snelling

This isn't the exact link you sent me to but it was to one of his articles. 

I criticized it, you informed me you were not a YEC'er then I pointed out it was ridiculous to use the rantings of a YEC'er as evidence if you didn't believe it. Then somewhere we moved on because I didn't see the point of arguing against something you didn't agree with either. Other than that, I do not remember you presenting a single link of evidence for the flood. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Again, if all these were easily proven false, then why are we still talking? 

Because you take willful ignorance to an amazing level, I am a masochist and so far I find your ridiculous rationalizations amusing. 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I started this because I couldn't understand how you could believe God is good and be a moral person. In this reply to Robby it is crystal clear to me that you are not moral and you do not hold god to moral standards. A police officer who intentionally shoots a child is immoral regardless of how terrible that child's parents are.  

caposkia wrote:

yes, intentionally shoots a child I agree.

Yet you don't have a problem with God intentionally killing children. 

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, my logic has been quite consistent. Killing the child to stop the abuse would be immoral.  

caposkia wrote:

I never said you had to kill the child

You said that God killing children would have been okay because the children were being abused. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Nor would Homosapiens. 

except that these non-homosapiens apparently made their own tools.

So what species was Noah? Tools or not, the likelihood of these hominids having developed speech is pretty well 0. Factor in the amount of time it would have taken to populate the world from the time of Adam to the time of Noah, and that puts Adam and Eve back further still. Yet, Genesis makes reference to Adam speaking. Hence, your interpretation of the bible, while very unique and unusual, simply does not work. Just like all of the other ones I've heard thus far. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RobbyPants

caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Logically, he could have used a sniper rifle... but if your goal was to take out thousands of people... do you really want to sit there and snipe each one of them? Let's think about this. If you had a mission to take out 1000's of people and chose to snipe them all, you'll likely find that you'd end up sniping the children that ultimately turned into adults before you were done with the population you originally sent out to destroy.

You're missing the point of the analogy. The point of differentiating between sniper rifle and C4 was to differentiate between selecting targets or hitting them all. We don't particularly care if God has one target or a thousand; he's God and he could simultaneously snipe them all.

That is definitely special pleading though on your part.  God could have done this so because He did it differently He's wrong and evil.  

You forget the original intention of the event... that God intended to wipe out humanity.  

Exactly. Your god wanted to kill children. I am not interested in any definition of omnibenevolence that includes deliberate child killing. Any attempt to combine the two is an attempt to reconcile cognitive dissonance by creating an illusion to say there is no contradiction in the first place. Your all-compassionate, child-killing god is creepy.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Actually

 

caposkia wrote:

How do you know that people didn't kill all their young ones before the flood in hopes to appease their gods and be saved?  Considering the level of evil claimed, that might not be a far fetched assumption... 

 

This is a far fetched assumption that says more about the Augustinian self loathing of modern christianity than it says about the 'level of evil' alleged to have existed before god suddenly doubled the volume of the hydrosphere. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

1.  Pharaoh's father had done that very same action to God's people 2 times a generation earlier, but on top of that, enslaved them, children and all... read Exodus 1:8-22.

How does that matter at all? Morality isn't multiplication, two negatives do not make a positive. I'll agree, the Pharaoh was an extreme asshole according to the story. How does that justify killing a bunch of children who had nothing to do with the Pharaoh?

uh, it had everything to do with what the pharaoh was doing to Gods people... and the one of the children that had nothing to do with pharaoh in this story was the pharaoh's son...

Unless you're asking about the parallel, were then I would say that this has to do with God giving everyone a way out if in fact they are innocent... in this case, it was the blood of the lamb for those who put their faith in God and the choice of the pharaoh for those who put their faith in the pharaoh.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

How does that justify god murdering all the children? Obviously, the Pharaoh didn't give a shit about them, God, being GOD, would have known that. He would have realized he was dealing with a sociopath on a power trip. You don't threaten a sociopath with killing a bunch of people that are not him, he will say "go ahead, I don't care." It even specifically says it even killed the first borns of people in prison. I imagine the people in prison were not big supporters of the Pharaoh since... well he was the one who threw them in prison. So why did God put the fate of innocents in the hands of a tyrannical man he knew didn't care about them?

Maybe the Pharaoh did give a shit about his own son. Killing his son might be an effective (albeit still immoral) way to make the point. But why include all the extra collateral damage of people who did nothing wrong except happen to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time?

actually the pharaoh did end up caring in this case because it was that action that resulted in the pharaoh releasing all the Jewish slaves...

Beyond Saving wrote:

1 Samuel 15?

Quote:

Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” 

 right... and in verse 6; "Saul said to the Kenites, "Go, depart, go down from among the Amalekites, so that I do not destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the sons of Israel when they came up from Egypt."  showing an example of a situation where the innocent who could have been included in the slaughter were given a chance to leave.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So why didn't God kill just the Pharaoh and the Pharaoh's son? He killed the victims rather than the perpetrator. Do you think that is just? Apparently, God thinks killing innocent children is a good way to get people to do what he wants. I think that is immoral and my original point was that killing innocent children is a method God has used to enforce his idea of justice more than once, which is contrary to your claim that God always spared innocents. He clearly has no problem with collateral damage.  

I should ask you.... why is it ok here for God to kill pharaoh's son according to you?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I'll

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'll admit, you have such a horrendous track record that whenever you use the phrase "it is well known" that whatever follows it is probably completely false. Since I am someone who spends a very significant amount of time studying animals in their natural habitats and have never seen one drunk, I was highly skeptical of your claim about what is "well known". Sure enough, I spent the better part of an hour researching to find out that my initial reaction was correct. I provided a link to the most relevant authoritative source I came across. I found several other experts who said more or less the same thing, this is the first attempt of seen to actually scientifically demonstrate it is impossible.  

If I have a horrendous track record as you say, then it's pretty clear that you have not done your homework for each claim....  Just to make sure before I made such claims, I would double check by doing a quick google search on the topic.  I easily found many sources for each claim...  I would not have said so otherwise.  

just to triple check I googled it again... after getting through a bit of flack about elephants getting drunk on a particular African fruit that likely does produce a lot of alcohol when fermenting, but would not have been eaten by elephants from the ground, but rather from trees, on the same front search results page, I found this:

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2011/09/the-alcoholics-of-the-animal-world/

this is a quick search... maybe you know something I don't about this story...

Beyond Saving wrote:

We can pretty safely assume....YES since we have fairly significant evidence at a variety of finds where we can analyze what people ate at various periods throughout history. We have found bones damaged from human teeth or tools, we have found evidence of foraging, we have found the refuse they left on cave floors, we have found evidence of the domestication of dogs, we have not found evidence of farming. You would be amazed what we can learn from an archaeological site and determine from the remains of a body.

We also have other methods of determining approximately when different plants started being farmed. You see, when you are preserving seeds and planting them, you tend to have a lot of plants that are genetically similar in a smaller geographical space than is likely by the pure chance the seeds rely on without human intervention. The result is a genetic trail that we can follow that helps us estimate when different crops were being planted regularly.

The reality is that we are dealing with spotty information since it takes a certain amount of luck for us to find these sites and for them to be preserved enough to get accurate information from them. So our guesses are in a broad range. No one is going to be terribly stunned if we find a site a thousand years older that has evidence of farming. If you were claiming that farming was occurring in 22,000 BC- I would find that to be plausible. It very well might have taken a couple thousand years for farming to really become routine and it is possible we just haven't found the right sites. You are telling me that it was occurring 2 million years earlier- that is a huge difference and a gigantic leap to make without any supporting evidence whatsoever. If farming had occurred for 2 million years it is extremely improbable that we wouldn't have found some evidence of it.

it is quite amazing what archaeology can find... what is the dating of the discoveries you reference in the first paragraph?  I'm assuming this is your defense for farming not happening 2 million years ago

Beyond Saving wrote:

You conceded that Noah did not plant a vineyard and didn't drink wine. Therefore, you have conceded that this particular portion of the story is false. Whether you want to chalk it up as artistic license or whatnot is irrelevant. The story is not 100% accurate. Therefore, an intelligent person would question whether other parts of the story were also changed. 

the writer wrote of an event that happened using the means by which the writer understood those events to happen... it doesn't mean that part of the story is false... e.g.  If we had similar understanding of our history as these ancients had of theirs, it is not out of the question that one could write about a victim getting run over by a car in 1759... of course we know that cars were not around then and that actually they got trampled by a horse drawn carriage... but in no way does a claim that it was a car negate the fact that the person in question got run over and killed by a means of transportation...

to compare, there's no reason to think that Noah didn't in some way get drunk, whether from a vineyard he planted or by some other means of getting stoned, high, drunk or whatever the case may be that would cause him to not be coherent enough to know what was happening next... which is actually the point of the story at this part.

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Archaeology does not suggest ever that something didn't happen, rather only suggests what could have happened if evidence suggests it.... therefore:

      A.  archaeology has never suggested that a flood didn't happen and actually has shown evidence of other floods that suggest such a flood could have been possible.

     B.  archaeology can only suggest that thing existed at least as far back as X... in no way does that suggest that it didn't exist before, rather the evidence found only shows to that point in history.

A. You can't prove negatives.

exactly! I'm glad you get it

Beyond Saving wrote:

We have evidence of many floods throughout history. Since we so easily find evidence of smaller floods, we would expect to find evidence of a worldwide flood if one ever happened. We haven't found it. That is a good reason to be skeptical of the story. 

there's also reason to consider why we haven't found such a flood and we've already discussed the many possibilities of why, but to add to that archaeology also accepts that we might not have dug far enough down yet in the right spot.

Beyond Saving wrote:

B. I addressed this slightly above. It is difficult to get exact dates of when things were invented/discovered because by its nature archaeology is a field where we have only a few puzzle pieces and a lot of holes. But we can get in the ball park. When we are talking about something that occurred 20,000 years ago, no one is going to be surprised if we find out we were a couple thousand of years off. Such inaccuracy is expected when you are dealing with missing so much information. However, it is another thing entirely to suggest that our estimates are off by 2 million years. That kind of revelation would be the archaeological equivalent of the sun rising in the west tomorrow morning , gravity suddenly disappearing or Obama peeling off his skin to show that the world really is ran by a race of lizard aliens.

I've never suggested that... and I don't think anyone else is either.  Rather I'm suggesting as evidenced in history that things can faze in and out.  If a particular branch of any species is eliminated, that species evolutionary calendar can be set back... why would that not be the same with people?

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Also I have agreed with you that there is no evidence that we can see of with the flood... which is why I find it hard to believe that people can be so sure this never happened.  No evidence in no way is ever a basis for conclusion, rather a reason to do further research.

We are doing further research... you are ignoring it because instead of looking at the puzzle pieces then attempting to determine what happened you already assumed the story and force the puzzle pieces to fit it or ignore them. And yes, lack of evidence is often the basis of a conclusion. If you reasonably expect to find evidence, it is not there and there is no plausible reason for it to be missing then one can conclude that it didn't happen. If I told you that a nuclear bomb blew up New York City and you traveled to New York City and there is no bomb damage, no radiation and people are walking around like normal, the lack of evidence that a nuclear bomb went off would lead you to the rational conclusion that I lied. (Talking of nuclear bombs and NYC hi NSA ) That is just one example of many. I'm sure you have used the same rational numerous times in your life to conclude that something did not happen. Is it possible that a bomb did blow up NYC and then some kind of time warp happened or we merged with an alternate dimension or (insert cheesy sci fi show explanation to undue damage)? Sure. You can't prove it didn't. But it would be borderline insane to actually believe and act as if it happened when there is no supporting evidence. 

the first problem with this comparison is you're talking about a place we can actually visit and observe to see if the claim really happened.  A nuclear bomb leaves quite a mark, a little bit more than water, but even so, it's also so close in history to today that it would be very easy to figure out.

the other problem is you're also looking at my perspective that this happened as if I'm basing all my beliefs off of this story.  That's illogical and irrational.  Rather I take the sum of all stories in scripture and conclude that this story is also true based on the evidences supporting other stories and occurances in scripture.  In other words, to use an example like you did above, if I claimed that I've driven across country 6 times, but for some reason, though everyone knows I've already done it 5 times no one seems to know that I did it a 6th time, would it be more logical to believe that I still did it or that I was just lying about the last time?    

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
 

You say all I have is the Bible and my personal feelings.  My personal feelings have not always supported my belief, so then I guess all I have is the Bible... backed up with history, archaeology, science, etc.  But because you're set on determining what I have, you know there's nothing more.

What archaeology? You just said

Quote:
 

Also I have agreed with you that there is no evidence that we can see of with the flood

So there is no archaeological evidence.

Scientific? By our current scientific understanding the flood is impossible. If is is possible, then everything we have determined scientifically regarding floods is wrong. History? All you have is the bible and people believing it which you say was written 2 million years after the flood. 

I am pretty sure you don't have more because you have failed to produce more. And so has every person I have ever had this discussion with. Since no one else has been able to produce evidence and everything I have read in archaeology suggests it never happened and my admittedly basic understanding of the science behind floods suggests that such an event would be impossible, yes I am quite confident that there is not more. I am more than happy to be proved wrong.  

Considering the flood, of course no one has produced anything, as you posted from me, there is no evidence that we can see of, but if you look at all that I said above, I'm not just talking about the flood story now am I and I've repeatedly offered for you to read the archaeological study Bible... don't even need to buy it, just google the section you're looking for.  

wait.. is it google?  is that why you haven't searched?  Bill Gates fan are you?  Alright, try bing.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have done a significant amount of homework. How do you think I am able to provide all those links to you? But why should I? You are the one claiming the story is true. You are the one who should have evidence supporting it. I shouldn't have to search for it. 

yet you're the one claiming you're not well versed in scripure... those links obviously have not provided an appropriate defense for your conclusion... I have offered you many links myself and quick sources for reasoning for what I'm claiming... The search takes 2 seconds, but you do actually have to read a bit.  

I'm sorry, I'm getting snide, not meant to be offensive, but a significant amount of homework means nothing if you're not looking at the right information.

Beyond Saving wrote:

And no, it isn't daring of you at all. You simply change the story every time you run into a problem you can't skate around. Your story is not falsifiable, when means it cannot be proved false, because you have posited an omnipotent deity. By definition, an omnipotent deity could do anything including hiding all evidence of an event so that it could never be proved. I never accused you of hiding anything, I have accused you of being willfully blind to evidence that makes your story questionable.

So many times people try to claim I change my story, but when i confront them about it, it sounds like they either later concluded that I changed the story way way after the fact or just misread what I wrote.  So I will challenge you to the same.  

As you say, an omnipotent deity could do anything including hide all the evidence, so why is your defense the lack of evidence?  I'm not claiming that's what happened, but I am curious about this.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You can't use scripture as evidence that scripture is accurate. I am questioning the accuracy of scripture. We know what creates rainbows- google it.

I already have that in my memory bank, thanks for the google reference though.  How btw, does that understanding prove that God didn't make a rainbow a covenant?

Beyond Saving wrote:

We don't know if it is accurate in regards to what God said or even in what Jesus said. For all we know, it is completely inaccurate. Since it is inaccurate about things we can verify, that should at least make us hesitant to unquestionably accept that it is a perfect transcript.

except that it's also accurate about things we can verify... that should at least make us hesitant to unquestionably deny that it's a perfect transcript.

If your response is going to be 'like what' then see the myths parables and legends or real thread with me and pjts.. you'll see numerous pages discussing that very thing based solely on historical evidence.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
 

the thing with God is we understand that God values our lives more than we could ever possibly value our own lives, let alone others around us.

Blatantly false even within the bible. You have said multiple times that God intended to wipe out humanity. Obviously, he thought people were better off dead. I imagine most of them didn't agree. Therefore, those humans valued their lives more than God did. Further evidence is the sheer amount of effort us humans put in to extending our lives while God does nothing. 

is that so... you must be reading the Torah.  The Bible has this whole other Testament called the New Testament.  your conclusion is very Jewish

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well it certainly wasn't written down before the invention of writing. Writing wasn't invented until a little before 3,000 BC. There were some cultures that used symbols as early as 20,000 BC but they were pretty crude to be doing something as complicated as passing down a story accurately. You are telling me that the flood occurred 2 million years earlier, so clearly the story was not written down since writing didn't exist.

which would be why we find no evidences of writings before then.  

it is generally understood that all historical happenings, unless written down by an official scribe for a king or pharaoh was not written down close to the time it occurred.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes it is, again. I am God, if you don't send me $500 I am going to smite everyone on the planet. I have a small hunch you are not going to send me $5,000. Why? $500 is a small price to pay to save your own life and the whole world. And we have already established that as God the action is moral since I warned you. So why wouldn't you send me $500? Because there is no evidence that I am a god.   

...and if you are a god, you are not my God because your request is inconsistent with who you claim to be according to scripture and from what I know of you in my lifetime.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are using other parts of the story to prove the story. You don't see the problem with that?

caposkia wrote:

not when one story is known to consist of sometimes hundreds of separate unrelated scripts.  This is why people claim the Bible supports itself.  A story is a compilation of years of texts compiled.  Usually not from the same source.

We aren't talking about different stories in the Bible. We are talking about events within the same story.

yes, yes we are talking about events within the same story.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I criticized it, you informed me you were not a YEC'er then I pointed out it was ridiculous to use the rantings of a YEC'er as evidence if you didn't believe it. Then somewhere we moved on because I didn't see the point of arguing against something you didn't agree with either. Other than that, I do not remember you presenting a single link of evidence for the flood. 

the problem with you getting stuck on the idea that this person is a YEC is that he was using actual evidence of a flood to the magnitude that could be comparable to the flood of the Bible to support his YEC beliefs.  Though I don't believe the evidence he presented is of the Biblical flood, I do believe that it shows evidence that such a flood could occur within the rules of nature.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because you take willful ignorance to an amazing level, I am a masochist and so far I find your ridiculous rationalizations amusing. 

I guess I'd have to say I'm still here for the same reason... so one of us is ignorant to an amazing level.  I have been level and strait with you since the beginning even challenging you to bring up things that you claim make me look more ignorant... yet when you do I still shut it down pretty efficiently with rationalizations that are pretty clear to most people... what is that saying?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you don't have a problem with God intentionally killing children. 

Here's my problem with your claim that God intentionally killed children.  It's like me telling you something is going to happen.  It will utterly destroy your house and property and it is because you brought it upon yourself.   Instead of choosing to leave your residence or allow your children to get to safety you keep them all in the house even though you know an event is going to occur that was set in motion due to your actions.  Are you really trying to blame me for you putting your children in danger?  it makes no sense to me.  

1. if you were innocent in the matter whatever it may be, the event would have never happened.

2.  the fact is it's going to happen and you still did nothing to protect your family from it.

yet you still blame someone else for the result...  I know why, but it's non-sensical.  How many more bad choices would you have to make before it becomes your fault or would it never be your fault because you never made the ultimate destructive event happen yourself?

Beyond Saving wrote:

You said that God killing children would have been okay because the children were being abused. 

I said it would have been better for them if that was the case especially seeing as no one would be there after to guide their lives and or provide for them.  though you seem to think it would be better for these abused children to suffer in starvation with the memories of their abuse until they die naturally.  If there are no adults left to take care of these innocent infants, how do you expect that they'd be ok if God chose to let them live?  No special pleading about how God can do anything so he could have fed them and raised them himself please.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Nor would Homosapiens. 

except that these non-homosapiens apparently made their own tools.

So what species was Noah? Tools or not, the likelihood of these hominids having developed speech is pretty well 0. Factor in the amount of time it would have taken to populate the world from the time of Adam to the time of Noah, and that puts Adam and Eve back further still. Yet, Genesis makes reference to Adam speaking. Hence, your interpretation of the bible, while very unique and unusual, simply does not work. Just like all of the other ones I've heard thus far. 

 

I'm not the one claiming Noah was another species.  the 2 million year date is a rough estimate based on evidence brought forth literally from this thread alone.  that could still likely be way off one way or another.  

Genesis makes reference to Adam speaking and we claim today that animals have a language and are able to communicate with each other... what is that suggesting really?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

How do you know that people didn't kill all their young ones before the flood in hopes to appease their gods and be saved?  Considering the level of evil claimed, that might not be a far fetched assumption... 

 

This is a far fetched assumption that says more about the Augustinian self loathing of modern christianity than it says about the 'level of evil' alleged to have existed before god suddenly doubled the volume of the hydrosphere. 

 

 

 

I only say that because it is no less far fetched than any other claim made on this thread about any part of the story not mentioned in scripture... yet this is the one you notice?


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: I'm not the

caposkia wrote:

 

I'm not the one claiming Noah was another species.  the 2 million year date is a rough estimate based on evidence brought forth literally from this thread alone.  that could still likely be way off one way or another.  

Genesis makes reference to Adam speaking and we claim today that animals have a language and are able to communicate with each other... what is that suggesting really?  

 

Unless Noah lived within the last 250 000 years or so...or you know what? Here, I'll give you an extra 150 000 years for free. If Noah lived within the last 400 000 years, then perhaps he could be considered a homo sapien sapien. Anything beyond that, he couldn't have been. At 400 000 years, we are only 1/5 of the way to your 2 million year estimate. If you're claiming that the flood happened 2 million years ago, then it couldn't have killed homosapiens. Also, they wouldn't have spoken in any advanced form of language (to touch on your second point). 

Animals communicating with each other is a reality, yes. However, they can only communicate very simple things. Animals can't really communicate to one another "the entire world is going to flood, because everyone but you and your family are evil. Now build a boat, and collect every animal on earth somehow." Your position is absolutely absurd, and certainly one of the more bizarre interpretations of the bible I've ever heard. I'll give you points for originality, but you're still wrong.

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

1.  Pharaoh's father had done that very same action to God's people 2 times a generation earlier, but on top of that, enslaved them, children and all... read Exodus 1:8-22.

How does that matter at all? Morality isn't multiplication, two negatives do not make a positive. I'll agree, the Pharaoh was an extreme asshole according to the story. How does that justify killing a bunch of children who had nothing to do with the Pharaoh?

uh, it had everything to do with what the pharaoh was doing to Gods people... and the one of the children that had nothing to do with pharaoh in this story was the pharaoh's son...

Unless you're asking about the parallel, were then I would say that this has to do with God giving everyone a way out if in fact they are innocent... in this case, it was the blood of the lamb for those who put their faith in God and the choice of the pharaoh for those who put their faith in the pharaoh.  

You are aware that Pharaohs were not elected right? The vast majority of people had absolutely no say in who was Pharaoh. Whether they supported the Pharaoh or not was irrelevant. They either obeyed or were killed/imprisoned/enslaved. Like I pointed out, the story specifically says the first born of people in prison were killed. I doubt people in prison were fans of the Pharaoh and many were probably their because they opposed the Pharaoh! And again, the people killed were the children- not the adults who may or may not have supported the Pharaoh. Do you think children are generally in to position to have an opinion on whether they should support the Pharaoh or god? 

 

caposkia wrote:

actually the pharaoh did end up caring in this case because it was that action that resulted in the pharaoh releasing all the Jewish slaves...

So as long as it works slaughtering children is okay?

 

caposkia wrote:

 right... and in verse 6; "Saul said to the Kenites, "Go, depart, go down from among the Amalekites, so that I do not destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the sons of Israel when they came up from Egypt."  showing an example of a situation where the innocent who could have been included in the slaughter were given a chance to leave.  

And how are infants supposed to leave or even comprehend the danger? Is a 7 year old child supposed to realize their parents are evil and willingly leave?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So why didn't God kill just the Pharaoh and the Pharaoh's son? He killed the victims rather than the perpetrator. Do you think that is just? Apparently, God thinks killing innocent children is a good way to get people to do what he wants. I think that is immoral and my original point was that killing innocent children is a method God has used to enforce his idea of justice more than once, which is contrary to your claim that God always spared innocents. He clearly has no problem with collateral damage.  

I should ask you.... why is it ok here for God to kill pharaoh's son according to you?

It isn't okay according to me. I think your god is an immoral sack of shit as he is portrayed in these stories. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If I have a

caposkia wrote:

If I have a horrendous track record as you say, then it's pretty clear that you have not done your homework for each claim....  Just to make sure before I made such claims, I would double check by doing a quick google search on the topic.  I easily found many sources for each claim...  I would not have said so otherwise.  

just to triple check I googled it again... after getting through a bit of flack about elephants getting drunk on a particular African fruit that likely does produce a lot of alcohol when fermenting, but would not have been eaten by elephants from the ground, but rather from trees, on the same front search results page, I found this:

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2011/09/the-alcoholics-of-the-animal-world/

this is a quick search... maybe you know something I don't about this story...

Exactly, you did a quick search and found a news story about a Moose that got stuck in the tree. The NEWS reporter reported that the POLICE said the Moose was drunk. Neither the reporter nor the police necessarily have any clue what they are talking about. Just because it is written down doesn't make it true. We can apply some critical thinking and look to actual scientific studies to determine if this claim is likely. Let us see what the actual facts are:

1: A Moose got stuck in an apple tree. We can be quite certain this did in fact happen, it is documented, we have a picture etc.

2: Moose eat apples. Plenty of evidence to support that.

3: People in the area believe that moose get drunk on rotten apples.

The question is whether the belief 3 is the most likely explanation for 1 & 2. While no scientist has started testing Moose blood alcohol levels, we have a very similar case we can compare this to that scientists did go through the effort to research.

1: Elephants act in weird ways. Documented and proven, yes they do act odd sometimes those funny beasts. 

2: They eat marula fruit. Yep, they do. 

3: People in the area believe that the elephants get drunk on the fruit.

Sound familiar? Like maybe we have already driven across this country and back?

As it turns out, the idea of the moose getting drunk on apples is unlikely on its face for many of the same reasons.

First, like the elephants, a moose would have to eat a ridiculous number of rotten apples to get drunk.

Second, like the elephants, moose tend to eat the apples out of the tree rather than off the ground. Why do you think the moose got stuck in the tree? Because she was trying to reach apples from the higher branches. There is plenty of documented evidence of moose pushing trees in an attempt to reach higher branches. 

Third, like marula fruit, apples tend to fall out of the tree when they get ripe. This means that the fruit that is more fermented is on the ground, while the fruit in the tree is more fresh and has a lower and often non-existent alcohol content. 

So what is the most likely explanation? The moose was attempting to get an apple that was out of reach and her legs slipped or a branch broke (moose are really heavy) and the moose landed in the embarrassing position. Or that a moose managed to eat enough fermented apples off the ground to get drunk? Everything we have documented points towards the former. The latter makes a much more entertaining news story, hence why it is the explanation the news reporters ran with. Maybe someday a scientist will bother with a journal article debunking this BS. Probably be awhile though, not a lot of scientists focus on moose compared to those who focus on elephants.  

The other animals in the story you linked to were given human made alcohol, except for the shrew, which you will notice I pointed out in my first post on the topic. 

 

caposkia wrote:

it is quite amazing what archaeology can find... what is the dating of the discoveries you reference in the first paragraph?  I'm assuming this is your defense for farming not happening 2 million years ago

Evidence of eating meat occurred 2.6 million years ago. There is some evidence that suggests it might have been more than 3 million years ago but that is disputed because there isn't much. 

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273

The first evidence of domestication of dogs was dated 33,000 BC.

http://www.livescience.com/27691-dogs-domesticated-oldest-skull.html

We are not nearly as clueless about how humans lived back then as you try to pretend. 

 

caposkia wrote:

the writer wrote of an event that happened using the means by which the writer understood those events to happen... it doesn't mean that part of the story is false... e.g.  If we had similar understanding of our history as these ancients had of theirs, it is not out of the question that one could write about a victim getting run over by a car in 1759... of course we know that cars were not around then and that actually they got trampled by a horse drawn carriage... but in no way does a claim that it was a car negate the fact that the person in question got run over and killed by a means of transportation...

to compare, there's no reason to think that Noah didn't in some way get drunk, whether from a vineyard he planted or by some other means of getting stoned, high, drunk or whatever the case may be that would cause him to not be coherent enough to know what was happening next... which is actually the point of the story at this part.

If I was reading a history book and it said someone was ran over by a car in 1759, I would throw it away. Obviously the author is completely unreliable and I would no longer be able to trust even the plausible sounding stories. Would you trust that history book?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

A. You can't prove negatives.

exactly! I'm glad you get it

Unfortunately, you don't. Since it is impossible to prove any negative, it is completely irrational for you to hold the stance that your belief must be true because no one can disprove it. 

 

caposkia wrote:

there's also reason to consider why we haven't found such a flood and we've already discussed the many possibilities of why, but to add to that archaeology also accepts that we might not have dug far enough down yet in the right spot.

Archaeology accepts no such thing. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

B. I addressed this slightly above. It is difficult to get exact dates of when things were invented/discovered because by its nature archaeology is a field where we have only a few puzzle pieces and a lot of holes. But we can get in the ball park. When we are talking about something that occurred 20,000 years ago, no one is going to be surprised if we find out we were a couple thousand of years off. Such inaccuracy is expected when you are dealing with missing so much information. However, it is another thing entirely to suggest that our estimates are off by 2 million years. That kind of revelation would be the archaeological equivalent of the sun rising in the west tomorrow morning , gravity suddenly disappearing or Obama peeling off his skin to show that the world really is ran by a race of lizard aliens.

I've never suggested that... and I don't think anyone else is either.  Rather I'm suggesting as evidenced in history that things can faze in and out.  If a particular branch of any species is eliminated, that species evolutionary calendar can be set back... why would that not be the same with people?

There is absolutely no evidence that it happened and it is highly improbable that humans were advanced enough to discover farming and then it was lost for millions of years. If they were that advanced, there would be some evidence and it becomes increasingly unlikely that we will find it as we have more and more finds that don't support the hypothesis. You are simply pulling a hypothesis out of your ass with absolutely no basis, there is no evidence of it and it is not believable. Your hypothesis should be treated exactly as seriously as the lizard aliens because it is just as likely and has exactly the same amount of evidence. 

 

caposkia wrote:

the first problem with this comparison is you're talking about a place we can actually visit and observe to see if the claim really happened.  A nuclear bomb leaves quite a mark, a little bit more than water, but even so, it's also so close in history to today that it would be very easy to figure out.

Floods leave a lot of evidence too. A worldwide flood would leave a gigantic amount of evidence and it wouldn't even matter if we were digging in the right place because by definition any place is the right place. 

 

caposkia wrote:

the other problem is you're also looking at my perspective that this happened as if I'm basing all my beliefs off of this story.  That's illogical and irrational.  

I agree, it is completely illogical and irrational to base your beliefs on a story. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Rather I take the sum of all stories in scripture and conclude that this story is also true based on the evidences supporting other stories and occurances in scripture.  

Huh? So it is irrational to base your beliefs off a story but if the story repeats itself it is suddenly rational? You are basing whether or not one story in scripture is true on other stories in scripture. Using that justification, Harry Potter 1 must be true because it is consistent with the rest of the series....

 

caposkia wrote:

In other words, to use an example like you did above, if I claimed that I've driven across country 6 times, but for some reason, though everyone knows I've already done it 5 times no one seems to know that I did it a 6th time, would it be more logical to believe that I still did it or that I was just lying about the last time?

No, it is completely logical to believe things that are plausible based on prior experience. That is how science works. And we know what happens when there are floods, time after time they happen and things are similar. And it doesn't match the story. According to all our observations of literally thousands of floods, a worldwide flood is impossible. You are not asking me to believe something that happens regularly, you are asking me to believe something happened only once in history and based on all of our experiences and observations is impossible.

 

caposkia wrote:

Considering the flood, of course no one has produced anything, as you posted from me, there is no evidence that we can see of, but if you look at all that I said above, I'm not just talking about the flood story now am I and I've repeatedly offered for you to read the archaeological study Bible... don't even need to buy it, just google the section you're looking for.  

wait.. is it google?  is that why you haven't searched?  Bill Gates fan are you?  Alright, try bing.  

Why should I bother when you JUST said there is no evidence? If there is NO evidence google isn't going to produce it no matter how many times I type in the search. You have zero evidence. None. Not one shred. You have admitted it. So why do you want me to find it?

 

caposkia wrote:

yet you're the one claiming you're not well versed in scripure... those links obviously have not provided an appropriate defense for your conclusion... I have offered you many links myself and quick sources for reasoning for what I'm claiming... The search takes 2 seconds, but you do actually have to read a bit.  

I'm sorry, I'm getting snide, not meant to be offensive, but a significant amount of homework means nothing if you're not looking at the right information.

Then link me to the "right information". I just scanned this whole thread and you haven't linked to anything except one link talking about the expansion of homo-sapiens to argue we were all in a small geographic location 200,000 years ago. To which I linked you to several journal articles detailing archaeological finds of tools being used millions of years ago in diverse geographic locations. That is when you came up with the absurd idea that Noah's flood must have happened 2 million years ago. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780?page=4

The relevant posts are 210 & 214.

Other than that, I have not seen you post anything except for the geological BS from the YEC'er in Australia in the other thread, which you linked to then promptly said you didn't believe him.

We have had a lot of posts, so if I missed something or have forgotten something that is relevant, by all means give me to link again.

 

caposkia wrote:

As you say, an omnipotent deity could do anything including hide all the evidence, so why is your defense the lack of evidence?  I'm not claiming that's what happened, but I am curious about this.

Because it is irrational to believe something when there is zero evidence it happened. I could as easily theorize that God is a giant mouse that pooped out our planet after eating a star made out of cheese, but since this mouse is omnipotent he erased all evidence of his existence and created Christianity to distract us from finding the truth. You can make up any random thing in your head and if there actually exists an omnipotent being absolutely anything you can think of could be true. How do you choose which one to believe? All you have is evidence for or against any given hypothesis.

 

caposkia wrote:

I already have that in my memory bank, thanks for the google reference though.  How btw, does that understanding prove that God didn't make a rainbow a covenant?

It suggests that rainbows existed long before humans. 

 

caposkia wrote:

except that it's also accurate about things we can verify... that should at least make us hesitant to unquestionably deny that it's a perfect transcript.

If one thing is wrong, it is by definition not perfect. You have admitted that at least one thing is wrong, therefore it is not perfect by definition. It might be exceedingly accurate, but it is not perfect. 

 

caposkia wrote:

If your response is going to be 'like what' then see the myths parables and legends or real thread with me and pjts.. you'll see numerous pages discussing that very thing based solely on historical evidence.

I have gone over there a few times. I think pjts has done an admirable job pointing out the numerous flaws in the myths and the suspension of disbelief required to believe in them. He is clearly much better informed about the archaeology and historical evidence of that particular corner of the world than I am. The only way the biblical stories can be found plausible at all is if you believe in a significant use of magic and that these things all occurred once and are a huge exception to everything we have observed and documented since. Even over there though you have admitted that the bible isn't perfect. Last time I read you were discussing whether or not the number of Jews in the exodus was accurate and didn't you admit that the bible might be wrong on the numbers? Therefore, the bible is not a perfect transcript. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Blatantly false even within the bible. You have said multiple times that God intended to wipe out humanity. Obviously, he thought people were better off dead. I imagine most of them didn't agree. Therefore, those humans valued their lives more than God did. Further evidence is the sheer amount of effort us humans put in to extending our lives while God does nothing. 

is that so... you must be reading the Torah.  The Bible has this whole other Testament called the New Testament.  your conclusion is very Jewish

The old testament is part of the bible, no? Last time I checked the New Testament didn't say "ha ha, that last part was a joke, ignore it." I will agree the god portrayed in the New Testament seems fundamentally different from god as portrayed in the Old Testament as far as his disposition towards humans and his temperament. That doesn't change his actions in the past though, and since according to you God is perfect and unchanging, then the vengeful god of the OT still exists. 

 

caposkia wrote:

which would be why we find no evidences of writings before then.  

it is generally understood that all historical happenings, unless written down by an official scribe for a king or pharaoh was not written down close to the time it occurred.

Really? Who generally understands that? I guess all those foolish historians reading all those primary sources written during the times they are studying didn't get the memo. Why we should probably through out diaries, letters, newspapers and the vast majority of written evidence that historians rely on when trying to piece together what happened.  

 

caposkia wrote:
 

the problem with you getting stuck on the idea that this person is a YEC is that he was using actual evidence of a flood to the magnitude that could be comparable to the flood of the Bible to support his YEC beliefs.  Though I don't believe the evidence he presented is of the Biblical flood, I do believe that it shows evidence that such a flood could occur within the rules of nature.  

As soon as I confronted you with the credibility of the man, who is universally dismissed as a quack among geologists, you said you didn't agree with him. How can you not believe he has evidence of the biblical flood but believe it proves such a flood is possible? That doesn't make any sense. Either the sediment he analyzed is evidence of a gigantic flood as he believes, or it is evidence that the world is billions of years old as everyone else in the world believes. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same sediment can't have been created both billions of years ago and 10,000 years ago. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I guess I'd have to say I'm still here for the same reason... so one of us is ignorant to an amazing level.  I have been level and strait with you since the beginning even challenging you to bring up things that you claim make me look more ignorant... yet when you do I still shut it down pretty efficiently with rationalizations that are pretty clear to most people... what is that saying?

Lol. You haven't shut it down. I have gotten you to change your hypothesis from the flood occurring 200,000 bc to 2 million bc. I have gotten you to admit you have zero archaeological evidence of the flood. You have come up with pretty far fetched rationalizations to justify the morality because you won't admit that god murdered innocent children in the story. See below.

 

caposkia wrote:

Here's my problem with your claim that God intentionally killed children.  It's like me telling you something is going to happen.  It will utterly destroy your house and property and it is because you brought it upon yourself.   Instead of choosing to leave your residence or allow your children to get to safety you keep them all in the house even though you know an event is going to occur that was set in motion due to your actions.  Are you really trying to blame me for you putting your children in danger?  it makes no sense to me.  

1. if you were innocent in the matter whatever it may be, the event would have never happened.

2.  the fact is it's going to happen and you still did nothing to protect your family from it.

yet you still blame someone else for the result...  I know why, but it's non-sensical.  How many more bad choices would you have to make before it becomes your fault or would it never be your fault because you never made the ultimate destructive event happen yourself?

The problem is this isn't an event that is happening that you are powerless to prevent. It is an event that you are the cause of the event with absolute power to either make the event happen or not. You yourself compared it to god using C4. So it is like you warning me you are going to blow up my house, me ignoring it and then you blowing up the house. Now I might be somewhat responsible because I failed to stop you or run for my life, but ultimately, you are the one who planted the C4 and pushed the trigger button knowing full well that not only me but my child was in the blast radius. In that case, I believe every moral human would blame you. But we have already established you are not a moral human so I don't expect you to agree.

 

caposkia wrote:

I said it would have been better for them if that was the case especially seeing as no one would be there after to guide their lives and or provide for them.  though you seem to think it would be better for these abused children to suffer in starvation with the memories of their abuse until they die naturally.  If there are no adults left to take care of these innocent infants, how do you expect that they'd be ok if God chose to let them live?  No special pleading about how God can do anything so he could have fed them and raised them himself please.

You really need to do your research on the topic of special pleading. Several people have corrected you on the definition yet you continue to use the accusation improperly. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Unless

Jabberwocky wrote:

Unless Noah lived within the last 250 000 years or so...or you know what? Here, I'll give you an extra 150 000 years for free. If Noah lived within the last 400 000 years, then perhaps he could be considered a homo sapien sapien. Anything beyond that, he couldn't have been. At 400 000 years, we are only 1/5 of the way to your 2 million year estimate. If you're claiming that the flood happened 2 million years ago, then it couldn't have killed homosapiens. Also, they wouldn't have spoken in any advanced form of language (to touch on your second point). 

Animals communicating with each other is a reality, yes. However, they can only communicate very simple things. Animals can't really communicate to one another "the entire world is going to flood, because everyone but you and your family are evil. Now build a boat, and collect every animal on earth somehow." Your position is absolutely absurd, and certainly one of the more bizarre interpretations of the bible I've ever heard. I'll give you points for originality, but you're still wrong.

 

Considering the issue with dating that we have, it was concluded that 2 million years ago was the possibility due to other evidences brought forth by another person.  It is logical that this particular dating is way off and that what you presented is closer.  The problem with settling on a date for this story is other than the texts, which also aren't originals, we have nothing to go on for this particular story.  So 2 million, 400,000, 3 days ago, it's all a complete guess because it's not based on anything other than what we know of history and our current state of affairs.  

Due to the advanced communication that seems to have been portrayed in these stories, it would be logical to think your dating is more accurate.  I know people are going to come back on this and either claim goalpost shifting or inconsistency, but the problem I have with that is we're concluding on assumptions.  And I'm not trying to prove anything, rather I'm questioning your/their rationality as to why I should accept this as a reason to doubt what I know.

We assume farming couldn't have happened before a certain date because Archaeology hasn't dug up any evidence of such.... But Archaeology never claims to eliminate possibilites due to lack of information.  Yes, the diets of ancients this far back have been found to be inconsistent with fruit and veggie farming, but it has been found among the oldest of homosapian specimines that grain was a staple.  Consider the ice man.  It's hard for me to believe that forging for grain was the basis for which those people ate though evidences would suggest that they didn't farm.  

Herein lies the other problem... if we don't have at least general ideas of when an event occured, how are we supposed to find evidences of it?  Honestly, we'd have to trip upon it one day.  My thought is we havent'... yet.  But we can't sit here and say we've dug into history beyond the 4th millenium and found nothing on this story so it didn't happen, who's to say it didn't happen jsut a few years earlier?  Whos to say that 4th millenium digging was in the right location?  among other issues.  Just as you can't accept no evidence as a reason to believe, I can't accept no evidence as a reason to doubt what I consider truth.  

We can throw dates at each other all we want and discuss till we're blue why it can't be this or it could be this, but until someone finds evidence that proves what their claiming is the way it was, we have nothing and therefore cannot conclude based on this story alone.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:You are

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are aware that Pharaohs were not elected right? The vast majority of people had absolutely no say in who was Pharaoh. Whether they supported the Pharaoh or not was irrelevant. They either obeyed or were killed/imprisoned/enslaved. Like I pointed out, the story specifically says the first born of people in prison were killed. I doubt people in prison were fans of the Pharaoh and many were probably their because they opposed the Pharaoh! And again, the people killed were the children- not the adults who may or may not have supported the Pharaoh. Do you think children are generally in to position to have an opinion on whether they should support the Pharaoh or god? 

yes, pharaohs and kings were never elected... i'm not sure when election started, but I do know it is a modern day thing... e.g. started in the last 1000 years or so... probably 500 years or so.  

I don't know who was in prison or why, but the problem I have with your statement is you claim they're probably there because they opposed the pharaoh... then you go on to say the people killed were children and then ask if children are in a position to have an opinion for support... If they're in jail for opposing the pharaoh, then they're in a position to have an opinion.  Opposed or for the pharaoh it wasn't about the pharaoh really, it was about Gods people.  They were not of Gods people, so they unfortunately had to endure the plague that was brought on by the pharaoh's stubbornness.  

just for the record on this one, any one of Gods people if they forgot to put the blood of the lamb on their doorpost would have lost a firstborn child as well.   It sounds to me as if an angel was sent down by God to do the deed... they were likely given a specific command kill all firstborns but those who are in a house marked with the blood of a lamb.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

actually the pharaoh did end up caring in this case because it was that action that resulted in the pharaoh releasing all the Jewish slaves...

So as long as it works slaughtering children is okay?

if that's how you want to look at it... pretty twisted if you ask me.  

In context, God gave pharaoh 6 other chances before taking this extreme... which was done because it was something the pharaoh knew his father had done to Gods people some time ago.  It's apparent that nothing else would have worked and also.  Which scenario is the better choice, slaughtering children so that the slavery would stop or enslaving children and beating them and killing them when they don't do enough with the promise that if they ever had children their children would suffer the same fate?    The scripture mentions 400 years... that's 400 years of slavery where every family member was labored to death... I'm not sure exactly what age it was when pharaoh decided it was ok for the children to start working for him, but its' generally understood that pharaoh gave no regard to that and so likely when a child was old enough to carry something they were put to work.  

Why not just kill pharaoh and his son right?  because another supporter would take pharaoh's place and continue the slavery is my guess.

Beyond Saving wrote:

And how are infants supposed to leave or even comprehend the danger? Is a 7 year old child supposed to realize their parents are evil and willingly leave?

this goes back to who's responsibility it is for these kids safety.  Good question, how are infants supposed to leave or even comprehend danger?  They don't and can't, they rely on... god.... no wait.. let's have a reality check for a moment... they rely on their PARENTS to keep them safe when there's danger.  If their parents aren't in the right state of mind to keep them safe, then I guess they're screwed.   

Times were terrible, but again, you can't know the alternative of keeping them alive... you can only assume it would have been better off that way.  But there again would be no one around to take care of these infants taht would ultimately be parentless.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

It isn't okay according to me. I think your god is an immoral sack of shit as he is portrayed in these stories. 

 

...and yet you just asked not only why didn't God kill pharaoh, but also his son... your rules seem to be changing a bit... which also btw, I answered above remembering you asked this.  

These were hard times.  With the pharaoh story, the point of having 6 other plagues come upon Egypt before this horrible event was to show that nothing else would have worked to get the pharaoh to let Gods people go and stop the slavery.  

Sorry, you have no footing here.  it's just that simple really.  It's horrible that God had to make such a choice, but it was worse what would have continued if the choice hadn't been made.  e.g. what would have stopped this pharaoh from doing the very same thing to the slaves if for some reason he thought they were getting too populated again?  ok, so kill the pharaoh, what would have stopped any other pharaoh supporter who took pharaoh's place from doing the very same thing? 

We can go back to the flood story and you run into the same problem... except here we don't know what was happening to the children.  A purely evil society it is safe to assume it likely wasn't much better.  

Sometimes one has to take drastic measures to ultimately save more later... in both of these scenarios, I see a choice God made to better the future for all involved rather than to allow the insanity to continue and that there really was no other way other than leaving babies abandoned to die on their own or scrapping the whole human plan and starting from scratch... which is basically what God did with the flood.  

I would love to hear... without special pleading please, on what would have been a better choice and why... keep in mind killing just adults abandons children most would likely die and killing no one leaves the same people to continue torturing, enslaving and killing children themselves for an infinite number of days to come.  

Let's use a pool scenario.  Do you take people out of the water who are playing dangerously and could hurt or drown someone or do you let them play until they end up drowning themselves?  You seem to think it's better to let them drown themselves.  How does this fit?  God "kills" people and their souls live on... this is not special pleading.  If God is real then the soul must be real too, it's existence by association... both or none.  If souls are real, then God was just pulling everyone out of the water, banning those who were guilty and protecting those who were innocent.  

I get that you don't like what my God did, but you're ignoring what the people were doing and/or likely doing in the flood story.  What the people were doing was much worse... e.g. not only were the first born dying or being tortured and enslaved by the pharaoh, but all children probably from age 3 or so on and it continued generation after generation, child after child... one child dies in slavery? oh well, another will be old enough soon and you're trying to tell me it was more wrong of God to take an extreme measure to stop that.  I know you're going to try to deny that, but you don't have a better alternative... you can't just kill the adults and hope the children survive... it doesn't work that way... God can take care of them... in heaven... it's the parents responsibility here on Earth.  


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving, you have to realize...

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

actually the pharaoh did end up caring in this case because it was that action that resulted in the pharaoh releasing all the Jewish slaves...

So as long as it works slaughtering children is okay?

if that's how you want to look at it... pretty twisted if you ask me.  

In context, God gave pharaoh 6 other chances before taking this extreme...

Beyond Saving, you have to realize that this is a continuous -  resounding - theme - with Caposika. Whenever God takes action to punish wicked adults and children die, there are two important things to remember:

1)  It's always the adult's fault and never God's (you know, the guy who's actually doing all the killing), and

2)  God never has a way to deal with just the wicked adults while not hurting children (or alternately, it's okay, because he chooses to target them all indiscriminately).

And that's as deep as the rabbit hole goes. This is how you reconcile concepts of omnibenevolence and willfull child murder.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Exactly,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Exactly, you did a quick search and found a news story about a Moose that got stuck in the tree. The NEWS reporter reported that the POLICE said the Moose was drunk. Neither the reporter nor the police necessarily have any clue what they are talking about. Just because it is written down doesn't make it true. We can apply some critical thinking and look to actual scientific studies to determine if this claim is likely. Let us see what the actual facts are:

1: A Moose got stuck in an apple tree. We can be quite certain this did in fact happen, it is documented, we have a picture etc.

2: Moose eat apples. Plenty of evidence to support that.

3: People in the area believe that moose get drunk on rotten apples.

The question is whether the belief 3 is the most likely explanation for 1 & 2. While no scientist has started testing Moose blood alcohol levels, we have a very similar case we can compare this to that scientists did go through the effort to research.

1: Elephants act in weird ways. Documented and proven, yes they do act odd sometimes those funny beasts. 

2: They eat marula fruit. Yep, they do. 

3: People in the area believe that the elephants get drunk on the fruit.

Sound familiar? Like maybe we have already driven across this country and back?

As it turns out, the idea of the moose getting drunk on apples is unlikely on its face for many of the same reasons.

First, like the elephants, a moose would have to eat a ridiculous number of rotten apples to get drunk.

Second, like the elephants, moose tend to eat the apples out of the tree rather than off the ground. Why do you think the moose got stuck in the tree? Because she was trying to reach apples from the higher branches. There is plenty of documented evidence of moose pushing trees in an attempt to reach higher branches. 

Third, like marula fruit, apples tend to fall out of the tree when they get ripe. This means that the fruit that is more fermented is on the ground, while the fruit in the tree is more fresh and has a lower and often non-existent alcohol content. 

So what is the most likely explanation? The moose was attempting to get an apple that was out of reach and her legs slipped or a branch broke (moose are really heavy) and the moose landed in the embarrassing position. Or that a moose managed to eat enough fermented apples off the ground to get drunk? Everything we have documented points towards the former. The latter makes a much more entertaining news story, hence why it is the explanation the news reporters ran with. Maybe someday a scientist will bother with a journal article debunking this BS. Probably be awhile though, not a lot of scientists focus on moose compared to those who focus on elephants.  

The other animals in the story you linked to were given human made alcohol, except for the shrew, which you will notice I pointed out in my first post on the topic. 

That's a good assessment. it really is.  Doesn't address why the Moose was acting drunk, but good assessment none the less.  It is clear you don't know anything about the article and can only assume based on what you know... I'm not sure, but I thought that's what you had a problem with me doing... anyway

Just a little tidbit on Moose as well, they do eat from the trees, but they are also grazers, which means they eat off the ground very often... it is not out of the question that a Moose ate fermented apples... the question could be whether it was sufficient to get a moose drunk... we don't know enough from the article to know for sure... again, just looked at it quickly, but there are many more.  Guess there's really no scientific studies on animals getting drunk off fermented fruit so this could be a dead end discussion because you will continue to make assumptions based on what you know vs. taking each case on its own..

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

it is quite amazing what archaeology can find... what is the dating of the discoveries you reference in the first paragraph?  I'm assuming this is your defense for farming not happening 2 million years ago

Evidence of eating meat occurred 2.6 million years ago. There is some evidence that suggests it might have been more than 3 million years ago but that is disputed because there isn't much. 

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273

The first evidence of domestication of dogs was dated 33,000 BC.

http://www.livescience.com/27691-dogs-domesticated-oldest-skull.html

We are not nearly as clueless about how humans lived back then as you try to pretend. 

Am I pretending or are you stretching a bit?  You addressed the problem... there isn't much evidence when talking about dates so far back.  We are not clueless and I continuously reference to the very thing you're claiming I am pretdending to claim we are ignorant about... your case is falling apart here.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

the writer wrote of an event that happened using the means by which the writer understood those events to happen... it doesn't mean that part of the story is false... e.g.  If we had similar understanding of our history as these ancients had of theirs, it is not out of the question that one could write about a victim getting run over by a car in 1759... of course we know that cars were not around then and that actually they got trampled by a horse drawn carriage... but in no way does a claim that it was a car negate the fact that the person in question got run over and killed by a means of transportation...

to compare, there's no reason to think that Noah didn't in some way get drunk, whether from a vineyard he planted or by some other means of getting stoned, high, drunk or whatever the case may be that would cause him to not be coherent enough to know what was happening next... which is actually the point of the story at this part.

If I was reading a history book and it said someone was ran over by a car in 1759, I would throw it away. Obviously the author is completely unreliable and I would no longer be able to trust even the plausible sounding stories. Would you trust that history book?

herein lies the very reason why we will never be on the same page... you fail to take into consideration that the person in question would hypothetically have the same historical and scientific understanding as an ancient person writing Bible scripture... the logic would be cars because that's all they know... they don't know that there were no cars then... I know it's hard for you to grasp because no one writing a passage so recent in our history would be so ignorant, but you have to look at it as if these people writing scripture are that ignorant of their past.  They will write what they know of right now and assume the past was the same... this common knowledge of ancient peoples.  

To answer you question in light of the whole analogy, I would trust that someone was run over by a means of transportation around the mid to late 1700's whether a car or trampled by horses it really doesn't matter, what matters is they died by that means... that's the point of the story.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

A. You can't prove negatives.

exactly! I'm glad you get it

Unfortunately, you don't. Since it is impossible to prove any negative, it is completely irrational for you to hold the stance that your belief must be true because no one can disprove it. 

wow.. did you just read that?  you say you can't prove negatives and I say I'm glad you get it... and you say.. I don't... but... uh.. if I... never mind.

I never said my belief must be true because no one can disprove it.. I've said lack of evidence is not an excuse or reason to not believe.  That's very different than if you can't disprove it its' true... If you believe that I'll sell you a unicorn.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

there's also reason to consider why we haven't found such a flood and we've already discussed the many possibilities of why, but to add to that archaeology also accepts that we might not have dug far enough down yet in the right spot.

Archaeology accepts no such thing. 

really... says which archaeologist???  I need the quote of an archaeologist concluding that they've looked everywhere they possibly can and that there's no possible way anything more can be found on the subject.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is absolutely no evidence that it happened and it is highly improbable that humans were advanced enough to discover farming and then it was lost for millions of years. If they were that advanced, there would be some evidence and it becomes increasingly unlikely that we will find it as we have more and more finds that don't support the hypothesis. You are simply pulling a hypothesis out of your ass with absolutely no basis, there is no evidence of it and it is not believable. Your hypothesis should be treated exactly as seriously as the lizard aliens because it is just as likely and has exactly the same amount of evidence. 

you can claim that but even within the last 5 years many new discoveries have been made including the tools question that I'm sure you would claim came out of my ass.  It seems we've talked enough again for you to forget what has already been brought to the table... I get it if you're bent on disproving scripture, but don't sit here and pretend you're trying to understand then.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Floods leave a lot of evidence too. A worldwide flood would leave a gigantic amount of evidence and it wouldn't even matter if we were digging in the right place because by definition any place is the right place. 

and we've had extensive discussion on why this might not have been found... have you forgotten that too?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Huh? So it is irrational to base your beliefs off a story but if the story repeats itself it is suddenly rational? You are basing whether or not one story in scripture is true on other stories in scripture. Using that justification, Harry Potter 1 must be true because it is consistent with the rest of the series....

was Harry Potter compiled from literally hundreds, possibly thousands of different fragments from random sources to complete one story?  Were all the books written by many different authors?  

yea, it's rational, it's called empirical.  Beyond that I again use outside sources like science, history, archaeology personal experience etc. to confirm the belief and understanding and i'm constantly trying to challenge that understanding to make sure what I think is true really is... you're not making the challening myself aspect very easy here... i feel like we're stuck on a perspective issue.

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, it is completely logical to believe things that are plausible based on prior experience. That is how science works. And we know what happens when there are floods, time after time they happen and things are similar. And it doesn't match the story. According to all our observations of literally thousands of floods, a worldwide flood is impossible. You are not asking me to believe something that happens regularly, you are asking me to believe something happened only once in history and based on all of our experiences and observations is impossible.

yea, that's kind of the problem with this story... is it is a once in history scenario... which if there is a God, makes sense that something like this would only happen once... but again we cannot base truth or belief off this story becasue as we've tirelessly discussed we really don't have any concrete evidence to put our hands on to validate this particular story, only archaeology showing the possibility of such a flood of the magnitude in the story happening... which you also seem to have forgotten we discussed what "world wide" could mean.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Considering the flood, of course no one has produced anything, as you posted from me, there is no evidence that we can see of, but if you look at all that I said above, I'm not just talking about the flood story now am I and I've repeatedly offered for you to read the archaeological study Bible... don't even need to buy it, just google the section you're looking for.  

wait.. is it google?  is that why you haven't searched?  Bill Gates fan are you?  Alright, try bing.  

Why should I bother when you JUST said there is no evidence? If there is NO evidence google isn't going to produce it no matter how many times I type in the search. You have zero evidence. None. Not one shred. You have admitted it. So why do you want me to find it?

because you're going to see the studies associated with the story and maybe see the rationalization through those studies on why some people can conclude the possibility of such a flood happening within the means of nature.

It also seems to me here it's hard for you to be wrapping your head around the broadness that this topic has become.  how about going back to specifically the particular post I was referencing to when I asked you to google it and simply just focus on that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then link me to the "right information". I just scanned this whole thread and you haven't linked to anything except one link talking about the expansion of homo-sapiens to argue we were all in a small geographic location 200,000 years ago. To which I linked you to several journal articles detailing archaeological finds of tools being used millions of years ago in diverse geographic locations. That is when you came up with the absurd idea that Noah's flood must have happened 2 million years ago. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780?page=4

The relevant posts are 210 & 214.

Other than that, I have not seen you post anything except for the geological BS from the YEC'er in Australia in the other thread, which you linked to then promptly said you didn't believe him.

We have had a lot of posts, so if I missed something or have forgotten something that is relevant, by all means give me to link again.

be it that you and I are discussing on 2 different threads at the same time, some of those links might be on the other thread.  I can try to find them again, but as I said just above, maybe we need to be a bit more focused... you seem to be forgetting a lot of what has already been discussed... for example, the 2 million years idea I believe was yours and I agreed based on the information you brought forth that it might be possible... someone else recently brought other information... maybe on the other thread that made me realize that's got to be a bit too far back and more likely somewhere between 250 and 500,000 years ago.  I know this brings up other issues again, but as I said in that response, we really are shooting in the dark when it comes to dating this story.  You can try to make dating the issue, but it's never going to be concrete therefore not enough for me to question it based on your or anyone elses dating issues.  This particular story just doesn't have enough information available to us at this time.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

As you say, an omnipotent deity could do anything including hide all the evidence, so why is your defense the lack of evidence?  I'm not claiming that's what happened, but I am curious about this.

Because it is irrational to believe something when there is zero evidence it happened. I could as easily theorize that God is a giant mouse that pooped out our planet after eating a star made out of cheese, but since this mouse is omnipotent he erased all evidence of his existence and created Christianity to distract us from finding the truth. You can make up any random thing in your head and if there actually exists an omnipotent being absolutely anything you can think of could be true. How do you choose which one to believe? All you have is evidence for or against any given hypothesis.

well I've definitely seen that with you.  Are you sure I exist or am I just a computer program designed to react based on response?  

Which one to believe.. now that is a good question.. no, that is a great question.  That unfortunately gets way off the OP topic of this thread.  

I have my reasons for believing just as you have your reasons for not believing... your reasons are a little more simplified than mine, but just the same it is rational to you that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist until you do.  I know many people with that perspective.  That perspective unfortunately will never work for me again based on what I know now.  I'm not claiming your wrong about what you believe, but I am trying to understand why I should accept your perspective based on what you told me... so far I've seen you get pissy and offer less useful information when that happens, but I haven't seen a reason to doubt what I know.  

I still discuss with you though because you're different than others who really have it out to prove me wrong... you still seem to be trying to understand and so I get your frustration.  My conclusion is a discussion on the flood story is not the best way at going about why you should believe what I do.  Rather it might be better to discuss what evidences we do have which is again a reference to the archaeological study Bible be it that you like to see to believe... then from there discuss the plausibility of a metaphysical existence. 

We can keep doing this though if you want.

Beyond Saving wrote:

It suggests that rainbows existed long before humans. 

that makes sense, but the rainbow was a covenant, not an invention.  There are a couple theories on this. 

One I don't expect anyone to accept is that God changed light to be able to bend in the raindrops so that a rainbow is formed.. If God is real that's possible, but not logical for any scientific mind.

Another is that God "setting" his rainbow in the clouds was something that always happened and now it will stand for a covenant and a reminder to God the promise made.  The scripture uses a present tense, not a future "will set"... I'd have to recheck the Hebrew if there's issue with this, but I'm pretty sure that's a legitimate translation of it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If one thing is wrong, it is by definition not perfect. You have admitted that at least one thing is wrong, therefore it is not perfect by definition. It might be exceedingly accurate, but it is not perfect. 

I get it... literally perfect, not perfect in portraying what happened.  fine, not perfect, but still portrays an event that took place that had a result as said in the story... e.g. worldwide flood... or localized.. that ended up killing every living thing exept for who was in the boat.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have gone over there a few times. I think pjts has done an admirable job pointing out the numerous flaws in the myths and the suspension of disbelief required to believe in them. He is clearly much better informed about the archaeology and historical evidence of that particular corner of the world than I am. The only way the biblical stories can be found plausible at all is if you believe in a significant use of magic and that these things all occurred once and are a huge exception to everything we have observed and documented since. Even over there though you have admitted that the bible isn't perfect. Last time I read you were discussing whether or not the number of Jews in the exodus was accurate and didn't you admit that the bible might be wrong on the numbers? Therefore, the bible is not a perfect transcript. 

you will also notice that in our discussions PJTS, who I will agree is more knowledgeable in that particular corner of the world that you and I both, has admitted logic to my perspective on a lot of the scriptures that have more history to go on.  

The imperfections of scripture never changed the result of the story, rather that it was just on a smaller scale.  The name issues as we discussed over there are as if I called Russia the USSR, same geographical location and names of course are based on what people remember, but are the most insignificant of possible flaws in the information... e.g. king Doofenschmirtz or king David, both are understood to be the same king ruling over the same territory regardless of what name you put there.  There is evidence of a king David here in history so the name is likely accurate for this particular king..

Beyond Saving wrote:

The old testament is part of the bible, no? Last time I checked the New Testament didn't say "ha ha, that last part was a joke, ignore it." I will agree the god portrayed in the New Testament seems fundamentally different from god as portrayed in the Old Testament as far as his disposition towards humans and his temperament. That doesn't change his actions in the past though, and since according to you God is perfect and unchanging, then the vengeful god of the OT still exists. 

it's perspective, not a change in rules.  

Yes the vengeful God of the OT does still exist, but the Laws have been fulfilled by a sacrifice once for all.  Gods wrath has been satisfied for those who accept that sacrifice.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

which would be why we find no evidences of writings before then.  

it is generally understood that all historical happenings, unless written down by an official scribe for a king or pharaoh was not written down close to the time it occurred.

Really? Who generally understands that? I guess all those foolish historians reading all those primary sources written during the times they are studying didn't get the memo. Why we should probably through out diaries, letters, newspapers and the vast majority of written evidence that historians rely on when trying to piece together what happened.  

historians generally understand that... they didn't need a memo, they're the ones who discovered that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

As soon as I confronted you with the credibility of the man, who is universally dismissed as a quack among geologists, you said you didn't agree with him. How can you not believe he has evidence of the biblical flood but believe it proves such a flood is possible? That doesn't make any sense. Either the sediment he analyzed is evidence of a gigantic flood as he believes, or it is evidence that the world is billions of years old as everyone else in the world believes. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same sediment can't have been created both billions of years ago and 10,000 years ago. 

I believe it shows such a flood is possible becasue the evidence he presented was of a massive flood capable of wiping out life to the magnitude of scripture in a much more localized area as described... though He seems to think it's teh actual flood... again perspective... His perspective is that the Earth is not that old and therefore that must be the flood... my perspective is that the Earth is much older and that it couldn't have been the flood so close to our past.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol. You haven't shut it down. I have gotten you to change your hypothesis from the flood occurring 200,000 bc to 2 million bc. I have gotten you to admit you have zero archaeological evidence of the flood. You have come up with pretty far fetched rationalizations to justify the morality because you won't admit that god murdered innocent children in the story. See below.

You have gotten me to change my hypothesis and someone else has gotten me to change it again... I don't know the dating if that's not obvious... it also should be obvious I don't base my belief on abstract dating.  

I won't admit that God killed innocent children or I won't admit that God was responsible for those children... there's a difference... you keep trying to put responsibility on God and off the parents and I keep trying to tell you it doesn't work that way, not then, not now.  If my son drown in a flood, it would be my fault, why?  for a flood to be that severe today, we would know about it ahead of time and I would have an opportunity to take evasive measures to keep my family safe.  If I was stupid about it and decided to ride it out I am responsible for what happens.  I can try to blame God, but He didn't make me stay... God in Noah's time never told people they couldn't try to save their children... again I will say if anyone had even a speck of a conscience to do so, I believe that God would have done something about it... but he didn't... why?  no one took initiative to save their family.  I also am under the belief that if people had that perspective then the flood would not have been necessary.  Here we go into hypotheticals again though.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The problem is this isn't an event that is happening that you are powerless to prevent. It is an event that you are the cause of the event with absolute power to either make the event happen or not. You yourself compared it to god using C4. So it is like you warning me you are going to blow up my house, me ignoring it and then you blowing up the house. Now I might be somewhat responsible because I failed to stop you or run for my life, but ultimately, you are the one who planted the C4 and pushed the trigger button knowing full well that not only me but my child was in the blast radius. In that case, I believe every moral human would blame you. But we have already established you are not a moral human so I don't expect you to agree.

well, God created the event, but the people caused the event... The event would not have happened if people didn't give God a reason to consider it.  The morality issue with the C4 is why we can't compare God to people... you'd have to consider that it was within the Law for me to do what  I was doing to you because of what you had done against the law.  We in America don't have such extreme laws that go to those lengths, but By the laws of God, those people were in violation with no hopes of return.  When comparing to the pharaoh story, it was obvious by the progression of the story that it was likely the only way to stop the horrors that was being allowed.. the alternative of killing off the pharaoh only opens the thrown to another who likely would continue in the steps of the pharaoh.  

 

caposkia wrote:

You really need to do your research on the topic of special pleading. Several people have corrected you on the definition yet you continue to use the accusation improperly. 

and yet I've been quoting the definition each time..  e.g. "the need to apply additional considerations without proper criticisms of these considerations" (a direct quote from the definition)...e .g. children when they're never mentioned and no one knows anything about any aspect of their lives.  That is special pleading... don't believe me yet?  I'll quote another part of the definition: "claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly."    See how it's special pleading yet?

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Unless Noah lived within the last 250 000 years or so...or you know what? Here, I'll give you an extra 150 000 years for free. If Noah lived within the last 400 000 years, then perhaps he could be considered a homo sapien sapien. Anything beyond that, he couldn't have been. At 400 000 years, we are only 1/5 of the way to your 2 million year estimate. If you're claiming that the flood happened 2 million years ago, then it couldn't have killed homosapiens. Also, they wouldn't have spoken in any advanced form of language (to touch on your second point). 

Animals communicating with each other is a reality, yes. However, they can only communicate very simple things. Animals can't really communicate to one another "the entire world is going to flood, because everyone but you and your family are evil. Now build a boat, and collect every animal on earth somehow." Your position is absolutely absurd, and certainly one of the more bizarre interpretations of the bible I've ever heard. I'll give you points for originality, but you're still wrong.

 

Considering the issue with dating that we have, it was concluded that 2 million years ago was the possibility due to other evidences brought forth by another person.  It is logical that this particular dating is way off and that what you presented is closer.  The problem with settling on a date for this story is other than the texts, which also aren't originals, we have nothing to go on for this particular story.  So 2 million, 400,000, 3 days ago, it's all a complete guess because it's not based on anything other than what we know of history and our current state of affairs.  

Ok. so you turned on a dime saying that perhaps it occurred around 2 million years ago when Beyond Saving pointed out hard evidence of humans being spread at least as far as Indonesia 1.6-1.8 million years ago (post #219 is when you concede the point). The reason you did is because Beyond Saving pointed out that it would not have been possible to spread the word of the flood coming, nor spread the word of Noah's existence, hence you needed to go further back in time to back up before we are CERTAIN that humans became significantly spread out across the world. The reason you were quick to concede that point is because you realized "You know what? That's completely correct. The entire world population of humans in a world with no mass communication or vehicles (not even horses) would have to be much closer in order to be able to effectively spread such news." You would be correct in making that assumption. Then, just now, you have conceded that humans would also require a certain level of language skills that is far more recent than 2 million years ago, and an estimate of 400 000 years is probably closer (which is still a remarkably ambitious estimate when it comes to the development of complex enough language to communicate a world-wide catastrophe being cooked up by an omnipotent deity). However, by that time, the populations were already too spread out. It doesn't work either way. So what's next? Are you to propose another date? The more recent you get, the further humanity is spread out, making effective communication impossible (not to mention different languages). The more ancient you get, the more deficient our language is. There exists 0 overlap where your assumption of the flood narrative could take place. ZERO! Are you ready to concede and finally admit (to us, and yourself) that there is no way a worldwide flood could have occurred in any way even remotely resembling the way the bible describes it?

I used to say that there are two ways to interpret the bible. 

1. Full on young earth creationist: Every word is literally true, and the world began in about 4016 BC. This position is irreconcilable with reality, and the bible's internal contradictions make it incoherent as well. 

2. Beyond moderate view: Almost everything is allegory, but Jesus was real, died on the cross for our sins, came back from the dead, etc. This position is irreconcilable with itself, and a theological disaster. The sacrifice is unnecessary if original sin isn't real. Any description of the story of the fall being "simply an allegory, but 'something' happened" is a giant cop-out, and also an admittance that the bible is not all true, putting into question its authenticity entirely. 

But there is 3rd way. I have dubbed it:

3. The D'Souza: This is an exercise in moving the goalposts, supersaturated with dishonesty, sometimes with malicious intent, and sometimes not. If one is dishonest with themselves in an examination of the bible (almost always due to delusion, and fear...plain FEAR of a torturous afterlife, suggested by this awful awful book), I can not seriously blame them for trying to justify it to other people in order to themselves feel that it's at least remotely possible that it's true.

You fall into #3 sir. Dinesh D'Souza once went as far as to say something along the lines that people used to laugh at the bible saying "let there be light" with the sun only coming into existence a few days later, but according to modern cosmology it's actually correct (while completely ignoring all of the other chronological inaccuracies of Genesis 1). I have just in this first part of the post provided you with the reason why your account of the flood is completely irreconcilable. While you claim to have an open mind, you refuse to drop your view that the worldwide flood happened, even though you have established that people would need a certain complexity of language, and proximity to one another. So, since I doubt you will drop your view, what's your next argument as to how the flood still could have occurred in some way similar to what the bible describes, even though complex language and global human proximity could not have existed at the same time? 

caposkia wrote:

Due to the advanced communication that seems to have been portrayed in these stories, it would be logical to think your dating is more accurate.  I know people are going to come back on this and either claim goalpost shifting or inconsistency, but the problem I have with that is we're concluding on assumptions.  And I'm not trying to prove anything, rather I'm questioning your/their rationality as to why I should accept this as a reason to doubt what I know.

Covered above. I like how you accused yourself of goalpost shifting before I had to. You at least seem to be able to detect that logical fallacy (although you still don't understand what special pleading is. You saw me post the phrase, and kept on using it in situations where it doesn't apply whatsoever). Remember, your goalposts are several hundreds of thousands of years apart. So how do you close them so that I can no longer score at will here? 

caposkia wrote:

We assume farming couldn't have happened before a certain date because Archaeology hasn't dug up any evidence of such.... But Archaeology never claims to eliminate possibilites due to lack of information.  Yes, the diets of ancients this far back have been found to be inconsistent with fruit and veggie farming, but it has been found among the oldest of homosapian specimines that grain was a staple.  Consider the ice man.  It's hard for me to believe that forging for grain was the basis for which those people ate though evidences would suggest that they didn't farm.  

Herein lies the other problem... if we don't have at least general ideas of when an event occured, how are we supposed to find evidences of it?  Honestly, we'd have to trip upon it one day.  My thought is we havent'... yet.  But we can't sit here and say we've dug into history beyond the 4th millenium and found nothing on this story so it didn't happen, who's to say it didn't happen jsut a few years earlier?  Whos to say that 4th millenium digging was in the right location?  among other issues.  Just as you can't accept no evidence as a reason to believe, I can't accept no evidence as a reason to doubt what I consider truth.  

We can throw dates at each other all we want and discuss till we're blue why it can't be this or it could be this, but until someone finds evidence that proves what their claiming is the way it was, we have nothing and therefore cannot conclude based on this story alone.  

Provide me a link with the date of the ice man specimen and evidence that grain was a large part of their diet please. Don't just say google it like you have a ton of times in your threads.  I want a link from you (no creationist sources please. I find them deluded at best, and opportunistic liars at worst). 

Know where to dig? This flood was supposed to be worldwide. Funny story is, right now I am sitting across the street from a community centre that was only several months ago a shelter for flood victims. We had a pretty big one this year. Of course you can't look at modern infrastructure and expect to find such evidence from a few thousand years ago. However, you can easily look at some of our large parks, and even any riverbank, and find evidence of a flood. You can also see a pattern to it. No such evidence has ever been found to suggest a worldwide flood. Flood myths occur in scriptures of all sorts, but they are exclusive to the ones that originate in areas near bodies of water! Funny detail that. The logical conclusion there is that people experienced a devastating local flood and told stories of it that got embellished into worldwide. The evidence of a worldwide flood is 0, and there have been people for generations for whom finding evidence in favour of it is a giant priority. Guess what they've found? Nothing. Some have lied, or bent interpretations of facts, but really, they've found nothing. This is really an epilogue to my post. If you want to continue debating this point, please primarily answer my points on problems with putting a date on this that works, and interpreting the bible. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I don't know

caposkia wrote:

I don't know who was in prison or why, but the problem I have with your statement is you claim they're probably there because they opposed the pharaoh...

Do you think the pharaoh throwing his friends in prison? 

 

caposkia wrote:

then you go on to say the people killed were children and then ask if children are in a position to have an opinion for support... If they're in jail for opposing the pharaoh, then they're in a position to have an opinion.

Have you read your bible? It says he killed the first born of people who were in prison. So yes, he killed the kids of people who were in prison.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

 Opposed or for the pharaoh it wasn't about the pharaoh really, it was about Gods people.  They were not of Gods people, so they unfortunately had to endure the plague that was brought on by the pharaoh's stubbornness.

And that was Gods choice no? He chose who his people were. There is no rational reason that god had to do it along racial lines, unless god is a racist. He could have declared all innocent people "his people". He didn't. He preferred to kill them. 

 

caposkia wrote:

just for the record on this one, any one of Gods people if they forgot to put the blood of the lamb on their doorpost would have lost a firstborn child as well.   It sounds to me as if an angel was sent down by God to do the deed... they were likely given a specific command kill all firstborns but those who are in a house marked with the blood of a lamb.  

Oh, so it is kind of like when a Recon Marine fucks up on the ground and paints the wrong target resulting in civilian casualties? How could a perfect god allow such a mistake to happen? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 So as long as it works slaughtering children is okay?

caposkia wrote:

if that's how you want to look at it... pretty twisted if you ask me.  

That is my point, it is extremely twisted. 

 

caposkia wrote:

In context, God gave pharaoh 6 other chances before taking this extreme... which was done because it was something the pharaoh knew his father had done to Gods people some time ago.  It's apparent that nothing else would have worked and also.  Which scenario is the better choice, slaughtering children so that the slavery would stop or enslaving children and beating them and killing them when they don't do enough with the promise that if they ever had children their children would suffer the same fate?    The scripture mentions 400 years... that's 400 years of slavery where every family member was labored to death... I'm not sure exactly what age it was when pharaoh decided it was ok for the children to start working for him, but its' generally understood that pharaoh gave no regard to that and so likely when a child was old enough to carry something they were put to work.  

Why not just kill pharaoh and his son right?  because another supporter would take pharaoh's place and continue the slavery is my guess.

So our brilliant omnipotent God that we should worship couldn't figure out how to overthrow a human government and get one of his guys in control without slaughtering a bunch of children? Funny how a number of mere mortal humans managed to overthrow their governments and put leaders on their side in control. 

 

caposkia wrote:

this goes back to who's responsibility it is for these kids safety.  Good question, how are infants supposed to leave or even comprehend danger?  They don't and can't, they rely on... god.... no wait.. let's have a reality check for a moment... they rely on their PARENTS to keep them safe when there's danger.  If their parents aren't in the right state of mind to keep them safe, then I guess they're screwed.

So are you categorically opposed to interfering with the parent/child relationship and assuming responsibility of caring for a child who is put in danger by their parents either through negligence or intent? If you see a child playing in the road that is not yours, are you saying you have no moral responsibility to protect them from the semi truck about to run them over?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Times were terrible, but again, you can't know the alternative of keeping them alive... you can only assume it would have been better off that way.  But there again would be no one around to take care of these infants taht would ultimately be parentless.

Not in this case, he wasn't killing every human in the world. There were all the soldiers who could have adopted them. Instead of ordering the soldiers to slaughter the infants, the Lord could have commanded them to take the infants and raise them as their own. Problem solved by my mere mortal mind. Perhaps if God had set that precedent, our government would do a better job helping find homes for the orphans created by our war activities. (But at least we generally don't follow the policy of simply killing all the infants) 

 

caposkia wrote:

...and yet you just asked not only why didn't God kill pharaoh, but also his son... your rules seem to be changing a bit... which also btw, I answered above remembering you asked this.  

No, I never said that. 

 

caposkia wrote:

These were hard times.  With the pharaoh story, the point of having 6 other plagues come upon Egypt before this horrible event was to show that nothing else would have worked to get the pharaoh to let Gods people go and stop the slavery.  

Sorry, you have no footing here.  it's just that simple really.  It's horrible that God had to make such a choice, but it was worse what would have continued if the choice hadn't been made.  e.g. what would have stopped this pharaoh from doing the very same thing to the slaves if for some reason he thought they were getting too populated again?  ok, so kill the pharaoh, what would have stopped any other pharaoh supporter who took pharaoh's place from doing the very same thing? 

Um, God? Is politics too complicated for God to figure out?

 

caposkia wrote:
   

I would love to hear... without special pleading please, on what would have been a better choice and why... keep in mind killing just adults abandons children most would likely die and killing no one leaves the same people to continue torturing, enslaving and killing children themselves for an infinite number of days to come.  

Let's use a pool scenario.  Do you take people out of the water who are playing dangerously and could hurt or drown someone or do you let them play until they end up drowning themselves?  You seem to think it's better to let them drown themselves.  How does this fit?  God "kills" people and their souls live on... this is not special pleading.  If God is real then the soul must be real too, it's existence by association... both or none.  If souls are real, then God was just pulling everyone out of the water, banning those who were guilty and protecting those who were innocent.

Yeah, you pull them out of the pool, you don't drown them. Are you seriously suggesting that God killed them to stop them from killing themselves? That is like saving a friend from suicide by cutting off their head...

 

caposkia wrote:
 

I get that you don't like what my God did, but you're ignoring what the people were doing and/or likely doing in the flood story.  What the people were doing was much worse... e.g. not only were the first born dying or being tortured and enslaved by the pharaoh, but all children probably from age 3 or so on and it continued generation after generation, child after child... one child dies in slavery? oh well, another will be old enough soon and you're trying to tell me it was more wrong of God to take an extreme measure to stop that.  I know you're going to try to deny that, but you don't have a better alternative... you can't just kill the adults and hope the children survive... it doesn't work that way... God can take care of them... in heaven... it's the parents responsibility here on Earth.  

Us mere mortals figured out how to end organized slavery without murdering all the slaves. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:That's a good

caposkia wrote:

That's a good assessment. it really is.  Doesn't address why the Moose was acting drunk, but good assessment none the less. It is clear you don't know anything about the article and can only assume based on what you know... I'm not sure, but I thought that's what you had a problem with me doing... anyway

I read the entire article... it wasn't exactly in depth. Plus I have the advantage of having a fair bit of knowledge about Moose since I have been known to hunt the critters. I didn't make any assumptions. I listed the facts and came to a conclusion based on the evidence available. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Just a little tidbit on Moose as well, they do eat from the trees, but they are also grazers, which means they eat off the ground very often

Absolutely false. Moose are not grazers, they are browsers. What is the difference? Browsers eat the ends off of trees and brush up off the ground. Grazers eat grass and low weeds near the ground. Cows are grazers, some animals like elk have a mixed diet and moose are browsers. Grazing and browsing species can get along in the same territory whereas if you have two browsing species or two grazing species they will compete for food sources and usually have an effect on each others population. This is well documented scientific fact. 

http://www.wildlifebiology.com/Downloads/Article/244/En/93-106.PDF

You will note that the moose left the trees under 10 cm alone. By far their preferred browsing range is 80-160 cm, which translates to roughly 2.5 to 5 ft off the ground. If you do a little bit of research you will also see that apples are way far down on the list of things that Moose eat frequently. 91% of their diet consists of birch, sallow/willow, pine, juniper, rowan, and aspen. Leaving 9% for random things like apples and people gardens.  

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112700005478

 

caposkia wrote:

... it is not out of the question that a Moose ate fermented apples...

It is not physically impossible, however it is highly improbable. 

 

caposkia wrote:

the question could be whether it was sufficient to get a moose drunk... we don't know enough from the article to know for sure... again, just looked at it quickly, but there are many more.  

Fortunately, we have a lot more to rely on than just this article. If we relied on journalists for all our knowledge we would believe all sorts of ridiculous things. The people who observe Moose for a living have not discovered Moose getting drunk or eating large quantities of fermented apples.

As it happens, if you search that Science Direct link there are an awful lot of researchers in Sweden right now who are analyzing Moose eating habits because they are trying to figure out how to draw Moose away from the roads and away from pine tree farms which is a major industry for them. Unfortunately, you have to pay for most of those articles, but from reading a few abstracts my suspicions appear to be confirmed, those Moose aren't eating tons of fermented apples.  

caposkia wrote:

Guess there's really no scientific studies on animals getting drunk off fermented fruit so this could be a dead end discussion because you will continue to make assumptions based on what you know vs. taking each case on its own..

Well considering there isn't a single scientific finding of animals getting drunk off of fermented fruit, and there are many scientists analyzing what animals eat, any claim that an animal got drunk from fermented fruit requires evidence to be believed. The norm, from what we have observed, is that animals do not get drunk from fermented fruit. 

What you have here is at best an unsubstantiated claim that something that has never been observed has happened. That doesn't mean it is false, but there is no evidence to support the claim the Moose was drunk. All the evidence and everything we know about Moose from decades of study suggests that Moose do not get drunk. So why believe the unsubstantiated claim when there are explanations for the same evidence that are consistent with what we have observed elsewhere? 

Furthermore, your initial claim was

caposkia wrote:

It's well known that animals in some parts of the world have gotten drunk off of eating certain overripe fruits...

Which I think even you can now admit is completely false. Even if it is possible, it is certainly not "well known" and the cases where people make the claim that an animal got drunk from fermented fruit don't have substantial evidence and are disputable. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

caposkia wrote:

it is quite amazing what archaeology can find... what is the dating of the discoveries you reference in the first paragraph?  I'm assuming this is your defense for farming not happening 2 million years ago

Evidence of eating meat occurred 2.6 million years ago. There is some evidence that suggests it might have been more than 3 million years ago but that is disputed because there isn't much. 

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273

The first evidence of domestication of dogs was dated 33,000 BC.

http://www.livescience.com/27691-dogs-domesticated-oldest-skull.html

We are not nearly as clueless about how humans lived back then as you try to pretend. 

Am I pretending or are you stretching a bit?  You addressed the problem... there isn't much evidence when talking about dates so far back.  We are not clueless and I continuously reference to the very thing you're claiming I am pretdending to claim we are ignorant about... your case is falling apart here.

.....??? I just linked you to a couple of sources that provide the evidence. We have an idea what people ate and when. You are pretending that farming was going on back then and that we wouldn't know about it if it was. 

  

caposkia wrote:

herein lies the very reason why we will never be on the same page... you fail to take into consideration that the person in question would hypothetically have the same historical and scientific understanding as an ancient person writing Bible scripture... the logic would be cars because that's all they know... they don't know that there were no cars then... I know it's hard for you to grasp because no one writing a passage so recent in our history would be so ignorant, but you have to look at it as if these people writing scripture are that ignorant of their past.  They will write what they know of right now and assume the past was the same... this common knowledge of ancient peoples.

Hmm, what they know right now and assume the past was the same.... reminds me of something, I can't remember what...

 

caposkia wrote:
 

To answer you question in light of the whole analogy, I would trust that someone was run over by a means of transportation around the mid to late 1700's whether a car or trampled by horses it really doesn't matter, what matters is they died by that means... that's the point of the story.  

And that is why you so easily eat up random claims that ultimately turn out to be false. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I never said my belief must be true because no one can disprove it.. I've said lack of evidence is not an excuse or reason to not believe.  That's very different than if you can't disprove it its' true... If you believe that I'll sell you a unicorn.

Then what is a reason not to believe for you? Why don't you believe in unicorns?

 

caposkia wrote:

you can claim that but even within the last 5 years many new discoveries have been made including the tools question that I'm sure you would claim came out of my ass.  It seems we've talked enough again for you to forget what has already been brought to the table... I get it if you're bent on disproving scripture, but don't sit here and pretend you're trying to understand then.

The tools were not farming tools. You simply make stuff up and then believe it until it can be disproved. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Floods leave a lot of evidence too. A worldwide flood would leave a gigantic amount of evidence and it wouldn't even matter if we were digging in the right place because by definition any place is the right place. 

and we've had extensive discussion on why this might not have been found... have you forgotten that too?

You have yet to offer one likely reason why we wouldn't have found evidence of a flood. The geological evidence is overwhelmingly against it and the archaeological evidence supports the findings of geology that such a flood never happened. They only argument you have presented is that of a creationist geologist who YOU said you don't believe. 

 

caposkia wrote:

was Harry Potter compiled from literally hundreds, possibly thousands of different fragments from random sources to complete one story?  Were all the books written by many different authors?  

Fine, Star Trek then. Sheer quantity of writings doesn't make it true. And being fragmented just makes it more likely to contain errors. 

 

caposkia wrote:

yea, it's rational, it's called empirical.  

A book is only empirical evidence that a book was written, it is not evidence that anything written in that book is true. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond that I again use outside sources like science, history, archaeology personal experience etc. to confirm the belief and understanding and i'm constantly trying to challenge that understanding to make sure what I think is true really is...

Exactly what sources? I have presented many historical and archaeological sources which contradict your belief. I haven't touched the science much because I am not personally as knowledgeable on that topic. You have offered none of these sources. The only source you have offered is the Bible. Hop on JSTOR and find me some articles which support your belief. I will read them in their entirety.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

you're not making the challening myself aspect very easy here... i feel like we're stuck on a perspective issue.

Really? I think I've been successful. We have gone from Noah's flood happening a couple hundred thousand years to 2 million. I'm sure you have learned an awful lot about the various archaeological finds of the last decade. We learned a little bit about fermented fruit, farming practices, the origin of farming and most recently moose. We really have covered a wide variety of topics just from finding conflicts with your silly belief. See, religion isn't useless. 

 

caposkia wrote:

yea, that's kind of the problem with this story... is it is a once in history scenario... which if there is a God, makes sense that something like this would only happen once... but again we cannot base truth or belief off this story becasue as we've tirelessly discussed we really don't have any concrete evidence to put our hands on to validate this particular story, only archaeology showing the possibility of such a flood of the magnitude in the story happening... which you also seem to have forgotten we discussed what "world wide" could mean.

Which makes it special pleading by definition. If falls outside the norm and you have no evidence supporting it. You accept that it is true, while rejecting other claims which have a similar amount of evidence without justification.

 

caposkia wrote:

because you're going to see the studies associated with the story and maybe see the rationalization through those studies on why some people can conclude the possibility of such a flood happening within the means of nature.

It also seems to me here it's hard for you to be wrapping your head around the broadness that this topic has become.  how about going back to specifically the particular post I was referencing to when I asked you to google it and simply just focus on that.

I'm not interested in rationalizations. I want evidence. Philosophy is for people who like staring at their navel, I like looking at the world, my navel isn't that pretty. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then link me to the "right information". I just scanned this whole thread and you haven't linked to anything except one link talking about the expansion of homo-sapiens to argue we were all in a small geographic location 200,000 years ago. To which I linked you to several journal articles detailing archaeological finds of tools being used millions of years ago in diverse geographic locations. That is when you came up with the absurd idea that Noah's flood must have happened 2 million years ago. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780?page=4

The relevant posts are 210 & 214.

Other than that, I have not seen you post anything except for the geological BS from the YEC'er in Australia in the other thread, which you linked to then promptly said you didn't believe him.

We have had a lot of posts, so if I missed something or have forgotten something that is relevant, by all means give me to link again.

be it that you and I are discussing on 2 different threads at the same time, some of those links might be on the other thread.  I can try to find them again, but as I said just above, maybe we need to be a bit more focused... you seem to be forgetting a lot of what has already been discussed... for example, the 2 million years idea I believe was yours and I agreed based on the information you brought forth that it might be possible... someone else recently brought other information... maybe on the other thread that made me realize that's got to be a bit too far back and more likely somewhere between 250 and 500,000 years ago.  I know this brings up other issues again, but as I said in that response, we really are shooting in the dark when it comes to dating this story.  You can try to make dating the issue, but it's never going to be concrete therefore not enough for me to question it based on your or anyone elses dating issues.  This particular story just doesn't have enough information available to us at this time.

The problem is that whichever date you want to pick there are huge issues with the story that should cause a rational person to doubt the truth of the story. You went to the 2 million years because I demonstrated that your idea that everyone was warned would have been impossible at 200,000 years. Then at 2 million years you have all sorts of other issues we have been discussing. You are right, the date isn't the problem. The problem is that the story is ridiculous at any year. Whatever year you want to pick, we can prove that it didn't happen that year (short of some super God magic deliberately erasing all the evidence). We could literally sit here and go back in 100,000 year chunks or even 10,000 year chunks and I could provide mountains of evidence that suggest the flood did not happen in that era. Only by keeping it vague can you pretend that "we just haven't dug deep enough".  

 

caposkia wrote:

well I've definitely seen that with you.  Are you sure I exist or am I just a computer program designed to react based on response?  

100% sure? No. But I am confident enough to accept it as a fact. I'm not 100% sure I exist, you can never be 100% sure of anything. However, all the evidence suggests that you are a human so it is completely rational for me to believe you are a human even though I have never actually seen you. It would be irrational for me to conclude you are a drunk moose, even though I have absolutely no evidence proving that you are not.   

 

caposkia wrote:

Which one to believe.. now that is a good question.. no, that is a great question.  That unfortunately gets way off the OP topic of this thread.  

I have my reasons for believing just as you have your reasons for not believing... your reasons are a little more simplified than mine, but just the same it is rational to you that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist until you do.  I know many people with that perspective.  That perspective unfortunately will never work for me again based on what I know now.  I'm not claiming your wrong about what you believe, but I am trying to understand why I should accept your perspective based on what you told me... so far I've seen you get pissy and offer less useful information when that happens, but I haven't seen a reason to doubt what I know.

Because I have evidence and the evidence doesn't point to a worldwide flood. Haven't you been reading my links?

Anyway, it is late so I'm going to cut this thread in half and get to the rest later. Going to be observing some deer tomorrow, I will let you know if I see any of them get drunk on apples. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I still

caposkia wrote:

I still discuss with you though because you're different than others who really have it out to prove me wrong... you still seem to be trying to understand and so I get your frustration.  My conclusion is a discussion on the flood story is not the best way at going about why you should believe what I do.  Rather it might be better to discuss what evidences we do have which is again a reference to the archaeological study Bible be it that you like to see to believe... then from there discuss the plausibility of a metaphysical existence. 

But that is irrelevant because I don't dispute every claim in the Bible. As I said before, I'm sure many of the stories in the bible are loosely based on real people, real places and real events. I dispute the mystical claims, such as the flood or the plagues of Egypt. Whether you can show that some of the battles related in the Bible actually happened is irrelevant. Even if you can prove the Jesus existed is irrelevant, because I don't dispute that (although I'm aware of many who do, I simply don't care enough to be informed enough to come to an opinion one way or the other). I do dispute that Jesus died and came back to life. So if you have archaeological evidence of that, I would be interested. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I get it... literally perfect, not perfect in portraying what happened.  fine, not perfect, but still portrays an event that took place that had a result as said in the story... e.g. worldwide flood... or localized.. that ended up killing every living thing exept for who was in the boat.

There is a gigantic difference between worldwide or localized. Did the flood kill every living human on the planet or not? If it didn't, then we are talking about a small village experiencing a flood which I won't doubt. We have tons of evidence of small scale floods in the area and several archaeologists have found evidence of floods that they believe may be the origin of the myth. They were big floods for the area, but not world wide and not supernatural. They didn't kill every living being, but probably did kill most or even all of the local community.

 

caposkia wrote:

you will also notice that in our discussions PJTS, who I will agree is more knowledgeable in that particular corner of the world that you and I both, has admitted logic to my perspective on a lot of the scriptures that have more history to go on.

Like I said, I don't doubt everything the bible says. I doubt the things that are magical and are not cohesive with our scientific understanding of the world. 

 

caposkia wrote:

The imperfections of scripture never changed the result of the story, rather that it was just on a smaller scale.  The name issues as we discussed over there are as if I called Russia the USSR, same geographical location and names of course are based on what people remember, but are the most insignificant of possible flaws in the information... e.g. king Doofenschmirtz or king David, both are understood to be the same king ruling over the same territory regardless of what name you put there.  There is evidence of a king David here in history so the name is likely accurate for this particular king..

Yes, and if you eliminate God and all the magic, you have a nice small scale and a story that makes sense. Most likely, the majority of the Bible was composed of stories used to pass along the lessons of history to future generations-it is myth. Just like Homer's Iliad is a record of the Trojan War. That doesn't make Aphrodite real, although I would love if she was. 

 

caposkia wrote:

it's perspective, not a change in rules.  

Yes the vengeful God of the OT does still exist, but the Laws have been fulfilled by a sacrifice once for all.  Gods wrath has been satisfied for those who accept that sacrifice.

So you have a wrathful and vengeful god that is sated. Not my definition of moral. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

which would be why we find no evidences of writings before then.  

it is generally understood that all historical happenings, unless written down by an official scribe for a king or pharaoh was not written down close to the time it occurred.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Really? Who generally understands that? I guess all those foolish historians reading all those primary sources written during the times they are studying didn't get the memo. Why we should probably through out diaries, letters, newspapers and the vast majority of written evidence that historians rely on when trying to piece together what happened.  

caposkia wrote:

historians generally understand that... they didn't need a memo, they're the ones who discovered that.

I need some evidence that "historians generally understand that" because again, historians don't ignore writings made near the time of a particular event. They tend to give those writings more credibility than those written afterwards. During biblical times, yes it is rare to find writings made at the time of the events. That is because writing was rare and much of it is lost, but if found historians are not going to ignore it, that is absurd.

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

As soon as I confronted you with the credibility of the man, who is universally dismissed as a quack among geologists, you said you didn't agree with him. How can you not believe he has evidence of the biblical flood but believe it proves such a flood is possible? That doesn't make any sense. Either the sediment he analyzed is evidence of a gigantic flood as he believes, or it is evidence that the world is billions of years old as everyone else in the world believes. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same sediment can't have been created both billions of years ago and 10,000 years ago. 

caposkia wrote:

I believe it shows such a flood is possible becasue the evidence he presented was of a massive flood capable of wiping out life to the magnitude of scripture in a much more localized area as described... though He seems to think it's teh actual flood... again perspective... His perspective is that the Earth is not that old and therefore that must be the flood... my perspective is that the Earth is much older and that it couldn't have been the flood so close to our past.

His evidence is only evidence of a flood if the world is young. If the world is billions of years old it is not evidence of a flood. You can't have it both ways. Either the sediment was deposited all at once, which he postulates was due to a major flood, or it was developed over billions of years, in which case it is not evidence of a single flood. You are trying to eat your cake and have it too.

 

caposkia wrote:

You have gotten me to change my hypothesis and someone else has gotten me to change it again... I don't know the dating if that's not obvious... it also should be obvious I don't base my belief on abstract dating.  

Obviously you can't because at any given date it can be shown the flood story as reported is extremely unlikely.

 

caposkia wrote:

and yet I've been quoting the definition each time..  e.g. "the need to apply additional considerations without proper criticisms of these considerations" (a direct quote from the definition)...e .g. children when they're never mentioned and no one knows anything about any aspect of their lives.  That is special pleading... don't believe me yet?  I'll quote another part of the definition: "claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly."    See how it's special pleading yet?

 Special pleading is when you ask for special consideration for a premise that is different from the norm. There are always going to be holes in evidence and things that are unverifiable. Special pleading is when you try to claim something is different from the norm without justification. Children existing is the norm. Where there are human societies there are children and we have mountains of data to support that. The bible doesn't specify one way or the other in these stories, so it is natural to apply the norm. It doesn't say the sun rose in the east that morning, but we can assume it did and that is not special pleading. You are trying to say that the situation was different from the norm, but there is no evidence to support that. Special pleading only applies when you are asking for an exception from what is common.

Now if other stories of the Bible demonstrated God going to great lengths to protect children, you might have a point. If God commanded them to kill everyone except the children, if God protected all the children in Egypt etc. Then you might have a point calling special pleading because in the flood story it doesn't say anything about the children but it being the norm that god protects children we could assume that he maintained that norm absent of evidence to the contrary. The reality is that nowhere does God seem to give special consideration to protecting the lives of children. The only people he seems to provide that consideration to are adults who are his followers and seems willing to allow even his followers children to die.

 

Logical Fallacy

Special Pleading Formal Form:

Rule: Xs are generally Ys. 

x is an X. 

x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic). 

Therefore, x is not a Y.

 

In this case:

I say

Rule: Human societies (X) are generally societies that have children (Y)

The humans killed in the flood (x) were human societies (X)

The humans killed in the flood (x) is NOT an exception to the rule.

Therefore, the humans killed in the flood (x) were (=) human societies with children (Y).

x = Y

 

Now my claim is that x = Y (the humans killed in the flood were societies with children) I'm not making an exception. I'm following the standard rule. Now if you want to formally prove my argument wrong you can either dispute the rule, dispute the premise x=X or demonstrate that this situation is a legitimate cause for an exception. If you succeed at any of these, that doesn't make me guilty of the fallacy of special pleading, it makes me guilty of having a faulty premise or not recognizing a legitimate exception.

 

Now lets look at your argument. 

 

Rule: Human societies (X) generally are societies that have children (Y)

The humans killed in the flood (x) were human societies (X)

The humans killed in the flood (x) are an exception and were human societies without children because of...(I) 

Therefore, the humans killed in the flood (x) were not (/=) human societies with children (Y).

x = X but x /= Y

Your claim is x /= Y (the humans killed in the flood were societies that don't have children) Now if you have an "I" that is relevant then your argument is not fallacious. I haven't seen any relevant reason to believe that those societies didn't have children. 

So far, the most persuasive argument you have made to justify the exception is that God decreed them evil and you can't believe that God would kill innocent children, so they must have been dead. Which led to me demonstrating that God has killed or ordered killed innocent children in other stories, so him drowning children in the flood is not inconsistent with other stories in the Bible, which really I think you agree with because much of your time has been devoted to explaining that the blame for the children's deaths rests on the parents not on God. A moral position I think we have to simply agree to disagree on, because I can't wrap my head around it.  

I'm assuming you don't dispute the first two, but feel free to correct me. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Ok. so you

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok. so you turned on a dime saying that perhaps it occurred around 2 million years ago when Beyond Saving pointed out hard evidence of humans being spread at least as far as Indonesia 1.6-1.8 million years ago (post #219 is when you concede the point). The reason you did is because Beyond Saving pointed out that it would not have been possible to spread the word of the flood coming, nor spread the word of Noah's existence, hence you needed to go further back in time to back up before we are CERTAIN that humans became significantly spread out across the world. The reason you were quick to concede that point is because you realized "You know what? That's completely correct. The entire world population of humans in a world with no mass communication or vehicles (not even horses) would have to be much closer in order to be able to effectively spread such news." You would be correct in making that assumption. Then, just now, you have conceded that humans would also require a certain level of language skills that is far more recent than 2 million years ago, and an estimate of 400 000 years is probably closer (which is still a remarkably ambitious estimate when it comes to the development of complex enough language to communicate a world-wide catastrophe being cooked up by an omnipotent deity). However, by that time, the populations were already too spread out. It doesn't work either way. So what's next? Are you to propose another date? The more recent you get, the further humanity is spread out, making effective communication impossible (not to mention different languages). The more ancient you get, the more deficient our language is. There exists 0 overlap where your assumption of the flood narrative could take place. ZERO! Are you ready to concede and finally admit (to us, and yourself) that there is no way a worldwide flood could have occurred in any way even remotely resembling the way the bible describes it?

I used to say that there are two ways to interpret the bible. 

1. Full on young earth creationist: Every word is literally true, and the world began in about 4016 BC. This position is irreconcilable with reality, and the bible's internal contradictions make it incoherent as well. 

2. Beyond moderate view: Almost everything is allegory, but Jesus was real, died on the cross for our sins, came back from the dead, etc. This position is irreconcilable with itself, and a theological disaster. The sacrifice is unnecessary if original sin isn't real. Any description of the story of the fall being "simply an allegory, but 'something' happened" is a giant cop-out, and also an admittance that the bible is not all true, putting into question its authenticity entirely. 

But there is 3rd way. I have dubbed it:

3. The D'Souza: This is an exercise in moving the goalposts, supersaturated with dishonesty, sometimes with malicious intent, and sometimes not. If one is dishonest with themselves in an examination of the bible (almost always due to delusion, and fear...plain FEAR of a torturous afterlife, suggested by this awful awful book), I can not seriously blame them for trying to justify it to other people in order to themselves feel that it's at least remotely possible that it's true.

You fall into #3 sir. Dinesh D'Souza once went as far as to say something along the lines that people used to laugh at the bible saying "let there be light" with the sun only coming into existence a few days later, but according to modern cosmology it's actually correct (while completely ignoring all of the other chronological inaccuracies of Genesis 1). I have just in this first part of the post provided you with the reason why your account of the flood is completely irreconcilable. While you claim to have an open mind, you refuse to drop your view that the worldwide flood happened, even though you have established that people would need a certain complexity of language, and proximity to one another. So, since I doubt you will drop your view, what's your next argument as to how the flood still could have occurred in some way similar to what the bible describes, even though complex language and global human proximity could not have existed at the same time? 

I kind of skimmed through that so if I missed something in this response, please let me know.  I skimmed because I got the gist of your statement.  Goalposts. 

Problem, we have nothing to go on for dating this story, so yes, we can only go on what we know.  If such an event occured, is it illogical to consider that humanity was set back a few centuries or even millenia?  If so why?  I can turn on a dime with the dating because... we have nothing to go on.  I still feel your dating was more logical.  2 million made sense with the basis of communication across great distances... then again there's theoretically 120 years that passed... how far could an ancient person or group travel to spread a word in 120 years?  I feel further than I originally assumed when agreeing to 2 million years.  So many factors to take into consideration, the dating I feel is not the issue to focus on be it that it's never going to be satisfied until we have evidences that allow us to scientifically date it. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Due to the advanced communication that seems to have been portrayed in these stories, it would be logical to think your dating is more accurate.  I know people are going to come back on this and either claim goalpost shifting or inconsistency, but the problem I have with that is we're concluding on assumptions.  And I'm not trying to prove anything, rather I'm questioning your/their rationality as to why I should accept this as a reason to doubt what I know.

Covered above. I like how you accused yourself of goalpost shifting before I had to. You at least seem to be able to detect that logical fallacy (although you still don't understand what special pleading is. You saw me post the phrase, and kept on using it in situations where it doesn't apply whatsoever). Remember, your goalposts are several hundreds of thousands of years apart. So how do you close them so that I can no longer score at will here? 

did I call it or what... read the last statement again then try to respond.  esp. the last sentence.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Provide me a link with the date of the ice man specimen and evidence that grain was a large part of their diet please. Don't just say google it like you have a ton of times in your threads.  I want a link from you (no creationist sources please. I find them deluded at best, and opportunistic liars at worst). 

http://www.naturalnews.com/029653_paleo_diet_health.html  shows that seeds, veggies, fruits, meats were staples not as much grains

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/iceman-last-meal.html shows ice man ate local grains. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Know where to dig? This flood was supposed to be worldwide.

yet we discussed that it may not have been.   We're back tracking


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Do you

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you think the pharaoh throwing his friends in prison? 

actually... sure why not considering the personality of this particular pharaoh.  Let's not forget pharaoh and Moses grew up together and were friends.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Have you read your bible? It says he killed the first born of people who were in prison. So yes, he killed the kids of people who were in prison.

yup

Beyond Saving wrote:

And that was Gods choice no? He chose who his people were. There is no rational reason that god had to do it along racial lines, unless god is a racist. He could have declared all innocent people "his people". He didn't. He preferred to kill them. 

God put on the land 6 other very severe plagues... no rational reason?  Pharaoh was enslaving children and killing them... Pharaoh's father did the very act you're angry at God for doing, except he did it because the Jewish population was becoming too large.  The current pharaoh was currently killing adults and children.  6 plagues did not stop him.  To me, the story makes it clear that such rash measures were the only way to save those people.    The people who followed God knew how to keep themselves safe. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oh, so it is kind of like when a Recon Marine fucks up on the ground and paints the wrong target resulting in civilian casualties? How could a perfect god allow such a mistake to happen? 

a mistake was made?

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is my point, it is extremely twisted. 

none of it was ok.. but your choice was killing generations of adults and children and violently enslaving the rest or killing one generation of first borns. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

So our brilliant omnipotent God that we should worship couldn't figure out how to overthrow a human government and get one of his guys in control without slaughtering a bunch of children? Funny how a number of mere mortal humans managed to overthrow their governments and put leaders on their side in control.

He proved that the pharaoh would not budge without such extreme measures.  God always leaves it up to us to decide.  Pharaoh knew what was coming and allowed it to happen.  Gods people were going to go free.  It was up to pharaoh how far he wanted to take it.  Our briliant omnipotent God not only saved future generations of children from enslavement, torture and death, but likely from this one action swayed other cultures present and future from testing God to that degree and again saved even more children from dying senselessly.  You can focus all you want on God killing children, but this one is pretty clear as to the logic of the intentions and the result of the actions vs. taking other alternatives.   

Beyond Saving wrote:

So are you categorically opposed to interfering with the parent/child relationship and assuming responsibility of caring for a child who is put in danger by their parents either through negligence or intent? If you see a child playing in the road that is not yours, are you saying you have no moral responsibility to protect them from the semi truck about to run them over?

I'm claiming that this is what you're claiming. especially with the Moses story. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Um, God? Is politics too complicated for God to figure out?

not at all, what you're upset about is that God didn't play politics, instead God said this is what's going to happen and made it happen. (freeing His people)

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, you pull them out of the pool, you don't drown them. Are you seriously suggesting that God killed them to stop them from killing themselves? That is like saving a friend from suicide by cutting off their head...

no, it's more like cutting off the head of a cereal killer so they don't end up killing many more.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Us mere mortals figured out how to end organized slavery without murdering all the slaves. 

 

right... and those mere mortals didn't.  Your point?  Oh, wait God didn't figure it out?  Again, God made it happen instead of playing the politics game.  That's how a king works. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Absolutely false. Moose are not grazers, they are browsers. What is the difference? Browsers eat the ends off of trees and brush up off the ground. Grazers eat grass and low weeds near the ground. Cows are grazers, some animals like elk have a mixed diet and moose are browsers. Grazing and browsing species can get along in the same territory whereas if you have two browsing species or two grazing species they will compete for food sources and usually have an effect on each others population. This is well documented scientific fact. 

http://www.wildlifebiology.com/Downloads/Article/244/En/93-106.PDF

You will note that the moose left the trees under 10 cm alone. By far their preferred browsing range is 80-160 cm, which translates to roughly 2.5 to 5 ft off the ground. If you do a little bit of research you will also see that apples are way far down on the list of things that Moose eat frequently. 91% of their diet consists of birch, sallow/willow, pine, juniper, rowan, and aspen. Leaving 9% for random things like apples and people gardens.  

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112700005478

ok.  My point still stands they do eat off the ground... granted apples aren't typical, but I'm sure if this story had any truth to it that it all was a unique situation.  If a moose is hungry enough and finds a fruit tree, I'm sure it would eat a meal of apples.  I'm sure this was not typical behavior of the moose.  You do know a lot about moose.  But let's take all possibilities into consideration.  is it possible in that 9% for a moose to make a meal of apples... if even just for one time?  I don't see why not.  Let's not get too lost in this.  the main point goes back to the liklihood of an ancient HUMAN getting drunk.  We've discussed metabolic disorders that can cause people to get drunk easily.  so a minimal amount of anything that has an alcohol content could have gotten such a person drunk let alone the possibility of actually having some sort of beverage available.   

Though I may not know as much as you do about moose, I do live in moose territory and have observed moose many times eating things off the ground. 

 

caposkia wrote:

... it is not out of the question that a Moose ate fermented apples...

It is not physically impossible, however it is highly improbable. 

 

caposkia wrote:

the question could be whether it was sufficient to get a moose drunk... we don't know enough from the article to know for sure... again, just looked at it quickly, but there are many more.  

Fortunately, we have a lot more to rely on than just this article. If we relied on journalists for all our knowledge we would believe all sorts of ridiculous things. The people who observe Moose for a living have not discovered Moose getting drunk or eating large quantities of fermented apples.

As it happens, if you search that Science Direct link there are an awful lot of researchers in Sweden right now who are analyzing Moose eating habits because they are trying to figure out how to draw Moose away from the roads and away from pine tree farms which is a major industry for them. Unfortunately, you have to pay for most of those articles, but from reading a few abstracts my suspicions appear to be confirmed, those Moose aren't eating tons of fermented apples.  

caposkia wrote:

Guess there's really no scientific studies on animals getting drunk off fermented fruit so this could be a dead end discussion because you will continue to make assumptions based on what you know vs. taking each case on its own..

Well considering there isn't a single scientific finding of animals getting drunk off of fermented fruit, and there are many scientists analyzing what animals eat, any claim that an animal got drunk from fermented fruit requires evidence to be believed. The norm, from what we have observed, is that animals do not get drunk from fermented fruit. 

What you have here is at best an unsubstantiated claim that something that has never been observed has happened. That doesn't mean it is false, but there is no evidence to support the claim the Moose was drunk. All the evidence and everything we know about Moose from decades of study suggests that Moose do not get drunk. So why believe the unsubstantiated claim when there are explanations for the same evidence that are consistent with what we have observed elsewhere? 

Furthermore, your initial claim was

caposkia wrote:

It's well known that animals in some parts of the world have gotten drunk off of eating certain overripe fruits...

Which I think even you can now admit is completely false. Even if it is possible, it is certainly not "well known" and the cases where people make the claim that an animal got drunk from fermented fruit don't have substantial evidence and are disputable. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

caposkia wrote:

it is quite amazing what archaeology can find... what is the dating of the discoveries you reference in the first paragraph?  I'm assuming this is your defense for farming not happening 2 million years ago

Evidence of eating meat occurred 2.6 million years ago. There is some evidence that suggests it might have been more than 3 million years ago but that is disputed because there isn't much. 

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273

The first evidence of domestication of dogs was dated 33,000 BC.

http://www.livescience.com/27691-dogs-domesticated-oldest-skull.html

We are not nearly as clueless about how humans lived back then as you try to pretend. 

Am I pretending or are you stretching a bit?  You addressed the problem... there isn't much evidence when talking about dates so far back.  We are not clueless and I continuously reference to the very thing you're claiming I am pretdending to claim we are ignorant about... your case is falling apart here.

.....??? I just linked you to a couple of sources that provide the evidence. We have an idea what people ate and when. You are pretending that farming was going on back then and that we wouldn't know about it if it was. 

  

caposkia wrote:

herein lies the very reason why we will never be on the same page... you fail to take into consideration that the person in question would hypothetically have the same historical and scientific understanding as an ancient person writing Bible scripture... the logic would be cars because that's all they know... they don't know that there were no cars then... I know it's hard for you to grasp because no one writing a passage so recent in our history would be so ignorant, but you have to look at it as if these people writing scripture are that ignorant of their past.  They will write what they know of right now and assume the past was the same... this common knowledge of ancient peoples.

Hmm, what they know right now and assume the past was the same.... reminds me of something, I can't remember what...

 

caposkia wrote:
 

To answer you question in light of the whole analogy, I would trust that someone was run over by a means of transportation around the mid to late 1700's whether a car or trampled by horses it really doesn't matter, what matters is they died by that means... that's the point of the story.  

And that is why you so easily eat up random claims that ultimately turn out to be false. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I never said my belief must be true because no one can disprove it.. I've said lack of evidence is not an excuse or reason to not believe.  That's very different than if you can't disprove it its' true... If you believe that I'll sell you a unicorn.

Then what is a reason not to believe for you? Why don't you believe in unicorns?

 

caposkia wrote:

you can claim that but even within the last 5 years many new discoveries have been made including the tools question that I'm sure you would claim came out of my ass.  It seems we've talked enough again for you to forget what has already been brought to the table... I get it if you're bent on disproving scripture, but don't sit here and pretend you're trying to understand then.

The tools were not farming tools. You simply make stuff up and then believe it until it can be disproved. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Floods leave a lot of evidence too. A worldwide flood would leave a gigantic amount of evidence and it wouldn't even matter if we were digging in the right place because by definition any place is the right place. 

and we've had extensive discussion on why this might not have been found... have you forgotten that too?

You have yet to offer one likely reason why we wouldn't have found evidence of a flood. The geological evidence is overwhelmingly against it and the archaeological evidence supports the findings of geology that such a flood never happened. They only argument you have presented is that of a creationist geologist who YOU said you don't believe. 

 

caposkia wrote:

was Harry Potter compiled from literally hundreds, possibly thousands of different fragments from random sources to complete one story?  Were all the books written by many different authors?  

Fine, Star Trek then. Sheer quantity of writings doesn't make it true. And being fragmented just makes it more likely to contain errors. 

 

caposkia wrote:

yea, it's rational, it's called empirical.  

A book is only empirical evidence that a book was written, it is not evidence that anything written in that book is true. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond that I again use outside sources like science, history, archaeology personal experience etc. to confirm the belief and understanding and i'm constantly trying to challenge that understanding to make sure what I think is true really is...

Exactly what sources? I have presented many historical and archaeological sources which contradict your belief. I haven't touched the science much because I am not personally as knowledgeable on that topic. You have offered none of these sources. The only source you have offered is the Bible. Hop on JSTOR and find me some articles which support your belief. I will read them in their entirety.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

you're not making the challening myself aspect very easy here... i feel like we're stuck on a perspective issue.

Really? I think I've been successful. We have gone from Noah's flood happening a couple hundred thousand years to 2 million. I'm sure you have learned an awful lot about the various archaeological finds of the last decade. We learned a little bit about fermented fruit, farming practices, the origin of farming and most recently moose. We really have covered a wide variety of topics just from finding conflicts with your silly belief. See, religion isn't useless. 

 

caposkia wrote:

yea, that's kind of the problem with this story... is it is a once in history scenario... which if there is a God, makes sense that something like this would only happen once... but again we cannot base truth or belief off this story becasue as we've tirelessly discussed we really don't have any concrete evidence to put our hands on to validate this particular story, only archaeology showing the possibility of such a flood of the magnitude in the story happening... which you also seem to have forgotten we discussed what "world wide" could mean.

Which makes it special pleading by definition. If falls outside the norm and you have no evidence supporting it. You accept that it is true, while rejecting other claims which have a similar amount of evidence without justification.

 

caposkia wrote:

because you're going to see the studies associated with the story and maybe see the rationalization through those studies on why some people can conclude the possibility of such a flood happening within the means of nature.

It also seems to me here it's hard for you to be wrapping your head around the broadness that this topic has become.  how about going back to specifically the particular post I was referencing to when I asked you to google it and simply just focus on that.

I'm not interested in rationalizations. I want evidence. Philosophy is for people who like staring at their navel, I like looking at the world, my navel isn't that pretty. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then link me to the "right information". I just scanned this whole thread and you haven't linked to anything except one link talking about the expansion of homo-sapiens to argue we were all in a small geographic location 200,000 years ago. To which I linked you to several journal articles detailing archaeological finds of tools being used millions of years ago in diverse geographic locations. That is when you came up with the absurd idea that Noah's flood must have happened 2 million years ago. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780?page=4

The relevant posts are 210 & 214.

Other than that, I have not seen you post anything except for the geological BS from the YEC'er in Australia in the other thread, which you linked to then promptly said you didn't believe him.

We have had a lot of posts, so if I missed something or have forgotten something that is relevant, by all means give me to link again.

be it that you and I are discussing on 2 different threads at the same time, some of those links might be on the other thread.  I can try to find them again, but as I said just above, maybe we need to be a bit more focused... you seem to be forgetting a lot of what has already been discussed... for example, the 2 million years idea I believe was yours and I agreed based on the information you brought forth that it might be possible... someone else recently brought other information... maybe on the other thread that made me realize that's got to be a bit too far back and more likely somewhere between 250 and 500,000 years ago.  I know this brings up other issues again, but as I said in that response, we really are shooting in the dark when it comes to dating this story.  You can try to make dating the issue, but it's never going to be concrete therefore not enough for me to question it based on your or anyone elses dating issues.  This particular story just doesn't have enough information available to us at this time.

The problem is that whichever date you want to pick there are huge issues with the story that should cause a rational person to doubt the truth of the story. You went to the 2 million years because I demonstrated that your idea that everyone was warned would have been impossible at 200,000 years. Then at 2 million years you have all sorts of other issues we have been discussing. You are right, the date isn't the problem. The problem is that the story is ridiculous at any year. Whatever year you want to pick, we can prove that it didn't happen that year (short of some super God magic deliberately erasing all the evidence). We could literally sit here and go back in 100,000 year chunks or even 10,000 year chunks and I could provide mountains of evidence that suggest the flood did not happen in that era. Only by keeping it vague can you pretend that "we just haven't dug deep enough".  

 

caposkia wrote:

well I've definitely seen that with you.  Are you sure I exist or am I just a computer program designed to react based on response?  

100% sure? No. But I am confident enough to accept it as a fact. I'm not 100% sure I exist, you can never be 100% sure of anything. However, all the evidence suggests that you are a human so it is completely rational for me to believe you are a human even though I have never actually seen you. It would be irrational for me to conclude you are a drunk moose, even though I have absolutely no evidence proving that you are not.   

 

caposkia wrote:

Which one to believe.. now that is a good question.. no, that is a great question.  That unfortunately gets way off the OP topic of this thread.  

I have my reasons for believing just as you have your reasons for not believing... your reasons are a little more simplified than mine, but just the same it is rational to you that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist until you do.  I know many people with that perspective.  That perspective unfortunately will never work for me again based on what I know now.  I'm not claiming your wrong about what you believe, but I am trying to understand why I should accept your perspective based on what you told me... so far I've seen you get pissy and offer less useful information when that happens, but I haven't seen a reason to doubt what I know.

Because I have evidence and the evidence doesn't point to a worldwide flood. Haven't you been reading my links?

Anyway, it is late so I'm going to cut this thread in half and get to the rest later. Going to be observing some deer tomorrow, I will let you know if I see any of them get drunk on apples. 

 

I'm sure


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:But that

Beyond Saving wrote:

But that is irrelevant because I don't dispute every claim in the Bible. As I said before, I'm sure many of the stories in the bible are loosely based on real people, real places and real events. I dispute the mystical claims, such as the flood or the plagues of Egypt. Whether you can show that some of the battles related in the Bible actually happened is irrelevant. Even if you can prove the Jesus existed is irrelevant, because I don't dispute that (although I'm aware of many who do, I simply don't care enough to be informed enough to come to an opinion one way or the other). I do dispute that Jesus died and came back to life. So if you have archaeological evidence of that, I would be interested. 

right, just to reiterate from another thread, you dispute the god and "magic" claims in scripture, not the historical fact of scripture.    The relevance of history means nothing when a story is assumed to be myth.

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is a gigantic difference between worldwide or localized. Did the flood kill every living human on the planet or not? If it didn't, then we are talking about a small village experiencing a flood which I won't doubt. We have tons of evidence of small scale floods in the area and several archaeologists have found evidence of floods that they believe may be the origin of the myth. They were big floods for the area, but not world wide and not supernatural. They didn't kill every living being, but probably did kill most or even all of the local community.

I've been saying this for a while... but are we now assuming humans had spread across the globe at this point?

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Yes, and if you eliminate God and all the magic, you have a nice small scale and a story that makes sense. Most likely, the majority of the Bible was composed of stories used to pass along the lessons of history to future generations-it is myth. Just like Homer's Iliad is a record of the Trojan War. That doesn't make Aphrodite real, although I would love if she was. 

which is why I mentioned on the other thread that you and I are discussing the wrong topics.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So you have a wrathful and vengeful god that is sated. Not my definition of moral. 

not quite.  unless you're suggesting laws are wrathful and vengeful.  God judged according to the laws.  The laws are a standard for all of humanity.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I need some evidence that "historians generally understand that" because again, historians don't ignore writings made near the time of a particular event. They tend to give those writings more credibility than those written afterwards. During biblical times, yes it is rare to find writings made at the time of the events. That is because writing was rare and much of it is lost, but if found historians are not going to ignore it, that is absurd.

The archaelogcial study Bible. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Obviously you can't because at any given date it can be shown the flood story as reported is extremely unlikely.

if that were the case, I wouldn't believe it. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Special pleading is when you ask for special consideration for a premise that is different from the norm. There are always going to be holes in evidence and things that are unverifiable. Special pleading is when you try to claim something is different from the norm without justification. Children existing is the norm. Where there are human societies there are children and we have mountains of data to support that. The bible doesn't specify one way or the other in these stories, so it is natural to apply the norm. It doesn't say the sun rose in the east that morning, but we can assume it did and that is not special pleading. You are trying to say that the situation was different from the norm, but there is no evidence to support that. Special pleading only applies when you are asking for an exception from what is common.

Now if other stories of the Bible demonstrated God going to great lengths to protect children, you might have a point. If God commanded them to kill everyone except the children, if God protected all the children in Egypt etc. Then you might have a point calling special pleading because in the flood story it doesn't say anything about the children but it being the norm that god protects children we could assume that he maintained that norm absent of evidence to the contrary. The reality is that nowhere does God seem to give special consideration to protecting the lives of children. The only people he seems to provide that consideration to are adults who are his followers and seems willing to allow even his followers children to die.

If what you are claiming is not special pleading than you must be able to tell me how many children died by Gods hand vs. how many would have survived vs.  how many would have died if God didn't flood them.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Now my claim is that x = Y (the humans killed in the flood were societies with children) I'm not making an exception. I'm following the standard rule. Now if you want to formally prove my argument wrong you can either dispute the rule, dispute the premise x=X or demonstrate that this situation is a legitimate cause for an exception. If you succeed at any of these, that doesn't make me guilty of the fallacy of special pleading, it makes me guilty of having a faulty premise or not recognizing a legitimate exception.

like child sacrifice to other gods?

Beyond Saving wrote:

So far, the most persuasive argument you have made to justify the exception is that God decreed them evil and you can't believe that God would kill innocent children, so they must have been dead. Which led to me demonstrating that God has killed or ordered killed innocent children in other stories, so him drowning children in the flood is not inconsistent with otheories in the Bible, which really I think you agree with because much of your time has been devoted to explaining that the blame for the children's deaths rests on the parents not on God. A moral position I think we have to simply agree to disagree on, because I can't wrap my head around it.  

I'm assuming you don't dispute the first two, but feel free to correct me. 

 

Just to be clear, I've never claimed that I don't believe God didn't or wouldn't kill innocent children, but responsibility for those innocent children is not in Gods hands, it is in the parents hands.   Murderers don't have basis of Law or rational reasoning to killing innocents. 

I see that you can't wrap your head around it and I'm fine agreeing to disagree as much as it pains me.  To put it to rest... if my child ever dies before I do.  I can't help but blame myself.  Others may not see it as my responsibility depending on the situation, but as a parent who cares about my child, I know what my options would be and how I could have prevented it.. exception obviously being of natural causes. 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
A clear mistake to post this althought a mistake; it's important

 

R e :: Perplexing,  A clear mistake to post this, although a mistake on my part to do so; it is important

    Servant, no longer   Servants ..  I called you Friend.

Quote from :: Jabberwocky

  Jabberwocky wrote :;

This thread is specifically myself seeking answers from those who completely deny that biological evolution is possible. 

Now going in, I realize that somewhere between many and all creationists will acknowledge that "micro evolution" does occur. This is commonly synonymous in the creationist world as "change within kinds". Creationists concede that genetic change can, and in fact will, occur within what they call a kind. They will even be comfortable (usually) with the phrase "adaptation within a kind". Based on this, I have three questions for creationists (using creationist terminology when possible even!)

1. Let's posit a scenario where two groups of one "kind" suddenly become separated from one another. Let's posit that one group didn't move at all from the original location, whereas the other did move to a quite different habitat over time. Now after many generations, the combination of genes which affect traits that are likely to benefit survival vary in these two populations due to their different habitats. After some time, some people find these two populations, posit that they have a common ancestor, and bring them back together, and find them reproductively incompatible. You may say "well, you're just suggesting macro-evolution is true here". Perhaps I am. However, it's not just us heathens that suggest this. Here is a video of Kent Hovind suggesting exactly that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ#t=316 . Now this isn't a video of just Hovind, so bear with me here Creationists. Just watch the first 5 minutes or so. 

At about 1:54, Kent says "If they can bring forth, they're the same kind! Simple definition. A dog and a wolf can bring forth. A dog and a banana can not." This is quite a concise statement, and while I don't ever see Kent Hovind as an authority on anything (except perhaps how to go to jail for the dumbest of reasons), it's pretty much a working definition in the creationist world. From Answers in Genesis, I present the following:

Quote:
If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind.1 However, the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind, since this may be the result of mutations (since the Fall).

Zonkeys (from a male zebra bred with a female donkey), zorses (male zebra and female horse), and hebras (male horse and female zebra) are all examples of hybrid animals. Hybrid animals are the result of the mating of two animals of the same “kind.” Perhaps one of the most popular hybrids of the past has been the mule, the mating of a horse and donkey. So, seeing something like a zorse or zonkey shouldn’t really surprise anyone, since donkeys, zebras, and horses all belong to the horse kind.

 

Between the above, and Kent Hovind's spiel about rabbits, creationists seem to concede that considerable amount of genetic change can occur in animals with a common ancestor, to the point where (in the AIG example) animals can produce offspring that are almost always sterile, or (in Hovind's example of Alaskan vs. southern rabbits) aren't reproductively compatible at all! 

Given that information, how can one posit the theory of evolution in its entirety to be impossible? With this concession, once you have two groups of animals with a common ancestor that are no longer reproductively compatible, what is to stop their genes from diverging so far that an uneducated person hundreds of thousands of years later would not be able to tell that there is a common ancestor at all? I will assert that given the evidence for this, (fossil evidence, DNA evidence which I will address further shortly, and homology for sure) to say that it could not have happened, one would have to show a biological mechanism that remembers its ancestral genes, and refuses to change past a certain point. Failure to find any such mechanism in genetics allows the theory of evolution to hold the position that creationists hate so much; one where we know it's true. 

2. Further on hybrid animals as touched on above. If it's true that everything is designed, why weren't mules? Surely, if god wanted us to have mules (a working animal that is for certain applications favourable to either of horses and/or donkeys) he would have made a "mule kind", with horses and donkeys being reproductively isolated. Instead, he made us figure out mules on our own. If mules are more useful than horses and donkeys, why would god have made us figure this out on our own? Also, why would he have made the overwhelming majority of mules sterile, instead of making their own "kind" so that they can bring forth, and perhaps help us selectively breed better mules?

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk <--Pretty well fully explained here. Why is human chromosome #2 homologous to two chimpanzee chromosome? The explanation that "god made it that way" is simply not good enough here. The link I posted is a talk by a biologist who is also a Catholic. Should you be Christian but not Catholic, do note that he says in this video that he believes in a designer, but not a deceptive one. Wouldn't you agree? If not, then:

A. Why is he deceptive, or

B. Why is Kenneth Miller wrong? 

  This is too important an issue to allow to die on the vine, only because Jabberwocky certainly formally announced he was choosing to no longer engage with Caposkia. Please be advised, Full attributions MUST be given to, completely the work of , Jabberwocky (himself)

 


 

  Unrelated pic  ::

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:  R e

danatemporary wrote:

 

R e :: Perplexing,  A clear mistake to post this, although a mistake on my part to do so; it is important

    Servant, no longer   Servants ..  I called you Friend.

Quote from :: Jabberwocky

  Jabberwocky wrote :;

This thread is specifically myself seeking answers from those who completely deny that biological evolution is possible. 

Now going in, I realize that somewhere between many and all creationists will acknowledge that "micro evolution" does occur. This is commonly synonymous in the creationist world as "change within kinds". Creationists concede that genetic change can, and in fact will, occur within what they call a kind. They will even be comfortable (usually) with the phrase "adaptation within a kind". Based on this, I have three questions for creationists (using creationist terminology when possible even!)

1. Let's posit a scenario where two groups of one "kind" suddenly become separated from one another. Let's posit that one group didn't move at all from the original location, whereas the other did move to a quite different habitat over time. Now after many generations, the combination of genes which affect traits that are likely to benefit survival vary in these two populations due to their different habitats. After some time, some people find these two populations, posit that they have a common ancestor, and bring them back together, and find them reproductively incompatible. You may say "well, you're just suggesting macro-evolution is true here". Perhaps I am. However, it's not just us heathens that suggest this. Here is a video of Kent Hovind suggesting exactly that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ#t=316 . Now this isn't a video of just Hovind, so bear with me here Creationists. Just watch the first 5 minutes or so. 

At about 1:54, Kent says "If they can bring forth, they're the same kind! Simple definition. A dog and a wolf can bring forth. A dog and a banana can not." This is quite a concise statement, and while I don't ever see Kent Hovind as an authority on anything (except perhaps how to go to jail for the dumbest of reasons), it's pretty much a working definition in the creationist world. From Answers in Genesis, I present the following:

Quote:
If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind.1 However, the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind, since this may be the result of mutations (since the Fall).

Zonkeys (from a male zebra bred with a female donkey), zorses (male zebra and female horse), and hebras (male horse and female zebra) are all examples of hybrid animals. Hybrid animals are the result of the mating of two animals of the same “kind.” Perhaps one of the most popular hybrids of the past has been the mule, the mating of a horse and donkey. So, seeing something like a zorse or zonkey shouldn’t really surprise anyone, since donkeys, zebras, and horses all belong to the horse kind.

 

Between the above, and Kent Hovind's spiel about rabbits, creationists seem to concede that considerable amount of genetic change can occur in animals with a common ancestor, to the point where (in the AIG example) animals can produce offspring that are almost always sterile, or (in Hovind's example of Alaskan vs. southern rabbits) aren't reproductively compatible at all! 

Given that information, how can one posit the theory of evolution in its entirety to be impossible? With this concession, once you have two groups of animals with a common ancestor that are no longer reproductively compatible, what is to stop their genes from diverging so far that an uneducated person hundreds of thousands of years later would not be able to tell that there is a common ancestor at all? I will assert that given the evidence for this, (fossil evidence, DNA evidence which I will address further shortly, and homology for sure) to say that it could not have happened, one would have to show a biological mechanism that remembers its ancestral genes, and refuses to change past a certain point. Failure to find any such mechanism in genetics allows the theory of evolution to hold the position that creationists hate so much; one where we know it's true. 

2. Further on hybrid animals as touched on above. If it's true that everything is designed, why weren't mules? Surely, if god wanted us to have mules (a working animal that is for certain applications favourable to either of horses and/or donkeys) he would have made a "mule kind", with horses and donkeys being reproductively isolated. Instead, he made us figure out mules on our own. If mules are more useful than horses and donkeys, why would god have made us figure this out on our own? Also, why would he have made the overwhelming majority of mules sterile, instead of making their own "kind" so that they can bring forth, and perhaps help us selectively breed better mules?

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk <--Pretty well fully explained here. Why is human chromosome #2 homologous to two chimpanzee chromosome? The explanation that "god made it that way" is simply not good enough here. The link I posted is a talk by a biologist who is also a Catholic. Should you be Christian but not Catholic, do note that he says in this video that he believes in a designer, but not a deceptive one. Wouldn't you agree? If not, then:

A. Why is he deceptive, or

B. Why is Kenneth Miller wrong? 

  This is too important an issue to allow to die on the vine, only because Jabberwocky certainly formally announced he was choosing to no longer engage with Caposkia. Please be advised, Full attributions MUST be given to, completely the work of , Jabberwocky (himself)

 


 

  Unrelated pic  ::

 

 

 

Be it I am not one of those theists that denies biological evolution... at least from what I'm understanding, I should continue these issues in general on the other thread.  It seems be it that most people on here are conversing with me on the other thread, a lot has bled onto this thread....  I'm going to stop discussing on this thread for now.  I'm sorry I allowed it to go as far as it did without reestablishing the OP.  I assure everyone that was never my intention, I only try to answer everyone honestly and completely.  See anyone interested on the other thread.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:danatemporary

caposkia wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 

R e :: Perplexing,  A clear mistake to post this, although a mistake on my part to do so; it is important

    Servant, no longer   Servants ..  I called you Friend.

Quote from :: Jabberwocky

  Jabberwocky wrote :;

This thread is specifically myself seeking answers from those who completely deny that biological evolution is possible. 

Now going in, I realize that somewhere between many and all creationists will acknowledge that "micro evolution" does occur. This is commonly synonymous in the creationist world as "change within kinds". Creationists concede that genetic change can, and in fact will, occur within what they call a kind. They will even be comfortable (usually) with the phrase "adaptation within a kind". Based on this, I have three questions for creationists (using creationist terminology when possible even!)

1. Let's posit a scenario where two groups of one "kind" suddenly become separated from one another. Let's posit that one group didn't move at all from the original location, whereas the other did move to a quite different habitat over time. Now after many generations, the combination of genes which affect traits that are likely to benefit survival vary in these two populations due to their different habitats. After some time, some people find these two populations, posit that they have a common ancestor, and bring them back together, and find them reproductively incompatible. You may say "well, you're just suggesting macro-evolution is true here". Perhaps I am. However, it's not just us heathens that suggest this. Here is a video of Kent Hovind suggesting exactly that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ#t=316 . Now this isn't a video of just Hovind, so bear with me here Creationists. Just watch the first 5 minutes or so. 

At about 1:54, Kent says "If they can bring forth, they're the same kind! Simple definition. A dog and a wolf can bring forth. A dog and a banana can not." This is quite a concise statement, and while I don't ever see Kent Hovind as an authority on anything (except perhaps how to go to jail for the dumbest of reasons), it's pretty much a working definition in the creationist world. From Answers in Genesis, I present the following:

Quote:
If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind.1 However, the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind, since this may be the result of mutations (since the Fall).

Zonkeys (from a male zebra bred with a female donkey), zorses (male zebra and female horse), and hebras (male horse and female zebra) are all examples of hybrid animals. Hybrid animals are the result of the mating of two animals of the same “kind.” Perhaps one of the most popular hybrids of the past has been the mule, the mating of a horse and donkey. So, seeing something like a zorse or zonkey shouldn’t really surprise anyone, since donkeys, zebras, and horses all belong to the horse kind.

 

Between the above, and Kent Hovind's spiel about rabbits, creationists seem to concede that considerable amount of genetic change can occur in animals with a common ancestor, to the point where (in the AIG example) animals can produce offspring that are almost always sterile, or (in Hovind's example of Alaskan vs. southern rabbits) aren't reproductively compatible at all! 

Given that information, how can one posit the theory of evolution in its entirety to be impossible? With this concession, once you have two groups of animals with a common ancestor that are no longer reproductively compatible, what is to stop their genes from diverging so far that an uneducated person hundreds of thousands of years later would not be able to tell that there is a common ancestor at all? I will assert that given the evidence for this, (fossil evidence, DNA evidence which I will address further shortly, and homology for sure) to say that it could not have happened, one would have to show a biological mechanism that remembers its ancestral genes, and refuses to change past a certain point. Failure to find any such mechanism in genetics allows the theory of evolution to hold the position that creationists hate so much; one where we know it's true. 

2. Further on hybrid animals as touched on above. If it's true that everything is designed, why weren't mules? Surely, if god wanted us to have mules (a working animal that is for certain applications favourable to either of horses and/or donkeys) he would have made a "mule kind", with horses and donkeys being reproductively isolated. Instead, he made us figure out mules on our own. If mules are more useful than horses and donkeys, why would god have made us figure this out on our own? Also, why would he have made the overwhelming majority of mules sterile, instead of making their own "kind" so that they can bring forth, and perhaps help us selectively breed better mules?

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk <--Pretty well fully explained here. Why is human chromosome #2 homologous to two chimpanzee chromosome? The explanation that "god made it that way" is simply not good enough here. The link I posted is a talk by a biologist who is also a Catholic. Should you be Christian but not Catholic, do note that he says in this video that he believes in a designer, but not a deceptive one. Wouldn't you agree? If not, then:

A. Why is he deceptive, or

B. Why is Kenneth Miller wrong? 

  This is too important an issue to allow to die on the vine, only because Jabberwocky certainly formally announced he was choosing to no longer engage with Caposkia. Please be advised, Full attributions MUST be given to, completely the work of , Jabberwocky (himself)

 


 

  Unrelated pic  ::

 

 

 

Be it I am not one of those theists that denies biological evolution... at least from what I'm understanding, I should continue these issues in general on the other thread.  It seems be it that most people on here are conversing with me on the other thread, a lot has bled onto this thread....  I'm going to stop discussing on this thread for now.  I'm sorry I allowed it to go as far as it did without reestablishing the OP.  I assure everyone that was never my intention, I only try to answer everyone honestly and completely.  See anyone interested on the other thread.

 

That's a shame. I mentioned that I enjoyed the quite specific topic of this thread as opposed to the other one, where it's just sort of become about everything. I'm going to answer your other post in another reply below this one, but if you do stop conversing in this thread, I'll pack it up and bring it over to the other one, as I want some answers to specific questions.

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
* Fixed *

  . . Misc.

 

 Exclusive to this Thread !!


Jabberwocky wrote:
  That's a shame. I mentioned that I enjoyed the quite specific topic of this thread as opposed to the other one, where it's just sort of become about everything. 

 

 Caposkia (a.k.a. - Cap)  --  We live in a mulit-thread environment . . .

  

    That reminds me  about  this thread.  Small suggestion, if you want a exclusive conversation  with  both Beyond & Robby-Pants,  specifically ASK one of the Mods to set it up, only takes a minute to do. Then they'll fix you right up! Bet you didn't know you could do that. 

 Jabberwocky is asking if you could head over to his Thread and reply there.

  _ _ _ _

"The personality is like a charioteer with two headstrong horses"  "And which can never be released from concrete sacral institution and living piety"

  ¬ (?)  Plato


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I've been

caposkia wrote:

I've been saying this for a while... but are we now assuming humans had spread across the globe at this point?

Tell me when it happened. If humans were spread around you have a bunch of problems I have pointed out. If they were not, then you are so far back in time that you have issues with the existence of language, farming and technology to even build a raft let alone a boat. I think there is overwhelming evidence that the event could not happen at either time, at least not in a way that makes the story any more accurate than Harry Potter.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Obviously you can't because at any given date it can be shown the flood story as reported is extremely unlikely.

if that were the case, I wouldn't believe it. 

Yet you do believe it despite admitting it couldn't have happened at 10,000 bc 200,000 bc or 2ma. So when could it possibly have happened?

 

caposkia wrote:

If what you are claiming is not special pleading than you must be able to tell me how many children died by Gods hand vs. how many would have survived vs.  how many would have died if God didn't flood them.

No I do not. I am not a utilitarian, I think utilitarianism is a bad moral code. Are you a utilitarian? Is God? His other moral standards do not seem consistent with utilitarian calculation.

 

caposkia wrote:

Just to be clear, I've never claimed that I don't believe God didn't or wouldn't kill innocent children, but responsibility for those innocent children is not in Gods hands, it is in the parents hands.   Murderers don't have basis of Law or rational reasoning to killing innocents. 

I see that you can't wrap your head around it and I'm fine agreeing to disagree as much as it pains me.  To put it to rest... if my child ever dies before I do.  I can't help but blame myself.  Others may not see it as my responsibility depending on the situation, but as a parent who cares about my child, I know what my options would be and how I could have prevented it.. exception obviously being of natural causes. 

Isn't a flood a "natural cause"? If your child contracts some disease at the local pool or trips down the stairs, is it your fault? If they are shot by a psycho at the movies or school is it your fault? It is ridiculous and very unhealthy to think you can protect your child from every danger, however much you want to. You are not omnipotent or omniscient.

And many murderers have used law to justify their actions. Other murderers have very rational reasons.

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok. so you turned on a dime saying that perhaps it occurred around 2 million years ago when Beyond Saving pointed out hard evidence of humans being spread at least as far as Indonesia 1.6-1.8 million years ago (post #219 is when you concede the point). The reason you did is because Beyond Saving pointed out that it would not have been possible to spread the word of the flood coming, nor spread the word of Noah's existence, hence you needed to go further back in time to back up before we are CERTAIN that humans became significantly spread out across the world. The reason you were quick to concede that point is because you realized "You know what? That's completely correct. The entire world population of humans in a world with no mass communication or vehicles (not even horses) would have to be much closer in order to be able to effectively spread such news." You would be correct in making that assumption. Then, just now, you have conceded that humans would also require a certain level of language skills that is far more recent than 2 million years ago, and an estimate of 400 000 years is probably closer (which is still a remarkably ambitious estimate when it comes to the development of complex enough language to communicate a world-wide catastrophe being cooked up by an omnipotent deity). However, by that time, the populations were already too spread out. It doesn't work either way. So what's next? Are you to propose another date? The more recent you get, the further humanity is spread out, making effective communication impossible (not to mention different languages). The more ancient you get, the more deficient our language is. There exists 0 overlap where your assumption of the flood narrative could take place. ZERO! Are you ready to concede and finally admit (to us, and yourself) that there is no way a worldwide flood could have occurred in any way even remotely resembling the way the bible describes it?

I used to say that there are two ways to interpret the bible. 

1. Full on young earth creationist: Every word is literally true, and the world began in about 4016 BC. This position is irreconcilable with reality, and the bible's internal contradictions make it incoherent as well. 

2. Beyond moderate view: Almost everything is allegory, but Jesus was real, died on the cross for our sins, came back from the dead, etc. This position is irreconcilable with itself, and a theological disaster. The sacrifice is unnecessary if original sin isn't real. Any description of the story of the fall being "simply an allegory, but 'something' happened" is a giant cop-out, and also an admittance that the bible is not all true, putting into question its authenticity entirely. 

But there is 3rd way. I have dubbed it:

3. The D'Souza: This is an exercise in moving the goalposts, supersaturated with dishonesty, sometimes with malicious intent, and sometimes not. If one is dishonest with themselves in an examination of the bible (almost always due to delusion, and fear...plain FEAR of a torturous afterlife, suggested by this awful awful book), I can not seriously blame them for trying to justify it to other people in order to themselves feel that it's at least remotely possible that it's true.

You fall into #3 sir. Dinesh D'Souza once went as far as to say something along the lines that people used to laugh at the bible saying "let there be light" with the sun only coming into existence a few days later, but according to modern cosmology it's actually correct (while completely ignoring all of the other chronological inaccuracies of Genesis 1). I have just in this first part of the post provided you with the reason why your account of the flood is completely irreconcilable. While you claim to have an open mind, you refuse to drop your view that the worldwide flood happened, even though you have established that people would need a certain complexity of language, and proximity to one another. So, since I doubt you will drop your view, what's your next argument as to how the flood still could have occurred in some way similar to what the bible describes, even though complex language and global human proximity could not have existed at the same time? 

I kind of skimmed through that so if I missed something in this response, please let me know.  I skimmed because I got the gist of your statement.  Goalposts. 

Problem, we have nothing to go on for dating this story, so yes, we can only go on what we know.  If such an event occured, is it illogical to consider that humanity was set back a few centuries or even millenia?  If so why?  I can turn on a dime with the dating because... we have nothing to go on.  I still feel your dating was more logical.  2 million made sense with the basis of communication across great distances... then again there's theoretically 120 years that passed... how far could an ancient person or group travel to spread a word in 120 years?  I feel further than I originally assumed when agreeing to 2 million years.  So many factors to take into consideration, the dating I feel is not the issue to focus on be it that it's never going to be satisfied until we have evidences that allow us to scientifically date it. 

You're missing my point entirely. You said that the flood couldn't have happened much more recently than 2 million years ago, because people were too spread out after then. Then, you agreed with me that it had to happen at least in the last couple hundred thousand years, because language had to be developed more-so than it was 2 million years ago. It can't have happened over 2 million and under 400 thousand years ago simultaneously. Your idea of how the flood could have happened has been proven to be incompatible with reality. Either admit it, or say something else (as you did below, which I'll address).

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Due to the advanced communication that seems to have been portrayed in these stories, it would be logical to think your dating is more accurate.  I know people are going to come back on this and either claim goalpost shifting or inconsistency, but the problem I have with that is we're concluding on assumptions.  And I'm not trying to prove anything, rather I'm questioning your/their rationality as to why I should accept this as a reason to doubt what I know.

Covered above. I like how you accused yourself of goalpost shifting before I had to. You at least seem to be able to detect that logical fallacy (although you still don't understand what special pleading is. You saw me post the phrase, and kept on using it in situations where it doesn't apply whatsoever). Remember, your goalposts are several hundreds of thousands of years apart. So how do you close them so that I can no longer score at will here? 

did I call it or what... read the last statement again then try to respond.  esp. the last sentence.

You should accept it as a reason to doubt a world-wide flood, because we have proven that people were either spread too far, or had not developed a useful enough language. By the time people developed an advanced enough language, they were too far spread out. That is why you should doubt it. I have no idea how you aren't understanding this.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Provide me a link with the date of the ice man specimen and evidence that grain was a large part of their diet please. Don't just say google it like you have a ton of times in your threads.  I want a link from you (no creationist sources please. I find them deluded at best, and opportunistic liars at worst). 

http://www.naturalnews.com/029653_paleo_diet_health.html  shows that seeds, veggies, fruits, meats were staples not as much grains

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/iceman-last-meal.html shows ice man ate local grains. 

 

So your example for people farming hundreds of thousands of years ago is a guy having eaten it a few thousand years ago? Of course you did mention that the find showed that perhaps we ate grain (and therefore probably farmed) longer ago than we thought. I'm too lazy to look that up, but I'll grant you that. So, because we found farming to be perhaps 1500 years older than we thought it was decades ago, does it mean that it's plausible to tack another few hundred thousand years? No! I've been granting you a hundred thousand to help aid your arguments, and you're still over a million years away from a coherent flood narrative for the flood.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Know where to dig? This flood was supposed to be worldwide.

yet we discussed that it may not have been.   We're back tracking

We did? Perhaps you did with someone else. If it's not world-wide, how come your book says that it is? Also, how come you've been attempting to argue for a world-wide flood this whole time, if you're willing to just drop it?

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:That's a

Jabberwocky wrote:

That's a shame. I mentioned that I enjoyed the quite specific topic of this thread as opposed to the other one, where it's just sort of become about everything. I'm going to answer your other post in another reply below this one, but if you do stop conversing in this thread, I'll pack it up and bring it over to the other one, as I want some answers to specific questions.

I think if we have direct statements or topics that have to do with the OP, I'm ok with that, but I'm not going to let it string along for pages at a time.  I've noticed typically after about 3 posts of mine, we start straying from the OP and the initial question/statement is forgotten


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok. so you turned on a dime saying that perhaps it occurred around 2 million years ago when Beyond Saving pointed out hard evidence of humans being spread at least as far as Indonesia 1.6-1.8 million years ago (post #219 is when you concede the point). The reason you did is because Beyond Saving pointed out that it would not have been possible to spread the word of the flood coming, nor spread the word of Noah's existence, hence you needed to go further back in time to back up before we are CERTAIN that humans became significantly spread out across the world. The reason you were quick to concede that point is because you realized "You know what? That's completely correct. The entire world population of humans in a world with no mass communication or vehicles (not even horses) would have to be much closer in order to be able to effectively spread such news." You would be correct in making that assumption. Then, just now, you have conceded that humans would also require a certain level of language skills that is far more recent than 2 million years ago, and an estimate of 400 000 years is probably closer (which is still a remarkably ambitious estimate when it comes to the development of complex enough language to communicate a world-wide catastrophe being cooked up by an omnipotent deity). However, by that time, the populations were already too spread out. It doesn't work either way. So what's next? Are you to propose another date? The more recent you get, the further humanity is spread out, making effective communication impossible (not to mention different languages). The more ancient you get, the more deficient our language is. There exists 0 overlap where your assumption of the flood narrative could take place. ZERO! Are you ready to concede and finally admit (to us, and yourself) that there is no way a worldwide flood could have occurred in any way even remotely resembling the way the bible describes it?

I used to say that there are two ways to interpret the bible. 

1. Full on young earth creationist: Every word is literally true, and the world began in about 4016 BC. This position is irreconcilable with reality, and the bible's internal contradictions make it incoherent as well. 

2. Beyond moderate view: Almost everything is allegory, but Jesus was real, died on the cross for our sins, came back from the dead, etc. This position is irreconcilable with itself, and a theological disaster. The sacrifice is unnecessary if original sin isn't real. Any description of the story of the fall being "simply an allegory, but 'something' happened" is a giant cop-out, and also an admittance that the bible is not all true, putting into question its authenticity entirely. 

But there is 3rd way. I have dubbed it:

3. The D'Souza: This is an exercise in moving the goalposts, supersaturated with dishonesty, sometimes with malicious intent, and sometimes not. If one is dishonest with themselves in an examination of the bible (almost always due to delusion, and fear...plain FEAR of a torturous afterlife, suggested by this awful awful book), I can not seriously blame them for trying to justify it to other people in order to themselves feel that it's at least remotely possible that it's true.

You fall into #3 sir. Dinesh D'Souza once went as far as to say something along the lines that people used to laugh at the bible saying "let there be light" with the sun only coming into existence a few days later, but according to modern cosmology it's actually correct (while completely ignoring all of the other chronological inaccuracies of Genesis 1). I have just in this first part of the post provided you with the reason why your account of the flood is completely irreconcilable. While you claim to have an open mind, you refuse to drop your view that the worldwide flood happened, even though you have established that people would need a certain complexity of language, and proximity to one another. So, since I doubt you will drop your view, what's your next argument as to how the flood still could have occurred in some way similar to what the bible describes, even though complex language and global human proximity could not have existed at the same time? 

I kind of skimmed through that so if I missed something in this response, please let me know.  I skimmed because I got the gist of your statement.  Goalposts. 

Problem, we have nothing to go on for dating this story, so yes, we can only go on what we know.  If such an event occured, is it illogical to consider that humanity was set back a few centuries or even millenia?  If so why?  I can turn on a dime with the dating because... we have nothing to go on.  I still feel your dating was more logical.  2 million made sense with the basis of communication across great distances... then again there's theoretically 120 years that passed... how far could an ancient person or group travel to spread a word in 120 years?  I feel further than I originally assumed when agreeing to 2 million years.  So many factors to take into consideration, the dating I feel is not the issue to focus on be it that it's never going to be satisfied until we have evidences that allow us to scientifically date it. 

You're missing my point entirely. You said that the flood couldn't have happened much more recently than 2 million years ago, because people were too spread out after then. Then, you agreed with me that it had to happen at least in the last couple hundred thousand years, because language had to be developed more-so than it was 2 million years ago. It can't have happened over 2 million and under 400 thousand years ago simultaneously. Your idea of how the flood could have happened has been proven to be incompatible with reality. Either admit it, or say something else (as you did below, which I'll address).

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Due to the advanced communication that seems to have been portrayed in these stories, it would be logical to think your dating is more accurate.  I know people are going to come back on this and either claim goalpost shifting or inconsistency, but the problem I have with that is we're concluding on assumptions.  And I'm not trying to prove anything, rather I'm questioning your/their rationality as to why I should accept this as a reason to doubt what I know.

Covered above. I like how you accused yourself of goalpost shifting before I had to. You at least seem to be able to detect that logical fallacy (although you still don't understand what special pleading is. You saw me post the phrase, and kept on using it in situations where it doesn't apply whatsoever). Remember, your goalposts are several hundreds of thousands of years apart. So how do you close them so that I can no longer score at will here? 

did I call it or what... read the last statement again then try to respond.  esp. the last sentence.

You should accept it as a reason to doubt a world-wide flood, because we have proven that people were either spread too far, or had not developed a useful enough language. By the time people developed an advanced enough language, they were too far spread out. That is why you should doubt it. I have no idea how you aren't understanding this.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Provide me a link with the date of the ice man specimen and evidence that grain was a large part of their diet please. Don't just say google it like you have a ton of times in your threads.  I want a link from you (no creationist sources please. I find them deluded at best, and opportunistic liars at worst). 

http://www.naturalnews.com/029653_paleo_diet_health.html  shows that seeds, veggies, fruits, meats were staples not as much grains

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/iceman-last-meal.html shows ice man ate local grains. 

 

So your example for people farming hundreds of thousands of years ago is a guy having eaten it a few thousand years ago? Of course you did mention that the find showed that perhaps we ate grain (and therefore probably farmed) longer ago than we thought. I'm too lazy to look that up, but I'll grant you that. So, because we found farming to be perhaps 1500 years older than we thought it was decades ago, does it mean that it's plausible to tack another few hundred thousand years? No! I've been granting you a hundred thousand to help aid your arguments, and you're still over a million years away from a coherent flood narrative for the flood.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Know where to dig? This flood was supposed to be worldwide.

yet we discussed that it may not have been.   We're back tracking

We did? Perhaps you did with someone else. If it's not world-wide, how come your book says that it is? Also, how come you've been attempting to argue for a world-wide flood this whole time, if you're willing to just drop it?

 

I did some more homework.  2 million years is way too far back be it that homosapiens hadn't developed in africa until about 200,000 years ago... it was 150,000 years ago that they migrated to near east and more like 50,000 years ago that they were able to migrate to teh far east Asia.  See Wiki...