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?

 

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Cap

Beyond Saving wrote:

Cap attempted to solve the numerous problems with the story of Noah's Ark by claiming that it must have happened over 200,000 years ago, at which point I called bullshit, pointing out that things like wine which is featured in the story, had not been invented. Several hundred posts later, Cap has claimed that Noah's Ark happened sometime between 10,000 years ago and 4 million years ago depending upon which problem he is presented with. To date, Cap has not provided a single shred of evidence, and has clung on to the story being true. Me and Jabberwocky have been shooting down his absurd claims left and right for the last 200 or so posts. Ranging from the idea that Noah and his family walked around the entire world and personally warned everyone about the flood, to Noah getting drunk off of eating rotten grapes since wine hadn't been invented yet. Recently, we have gotten into discussing the genetic inconsistencies with the story since some people are descendents of neanderthals and others are not and how such a thing could be possible if we are all descendants of Noah as the story claims. Cap has displayed a knowledge of genetics which is consistent with what you would expect from a theist. 

Thanks.

Nothing changes.


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

Hey all, wanted to apologize for the absense.  dont' know if anyone else was having a problem logging on, but for this while i was unable to get onto the threads.  I've also been quite busy with family and work so my time to check if I could log on is limited.  I hope we can pick up where we left off.

 

--cap 


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

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Cap attempted to solve the numerous problems with the story of Noah's Ark by claiming that it must have happened over 200,000 years ago, at which point I called bullshit, pointing out that things like wine which is featured in the story, had not been invented. Several hundred posts later, Cap has claimed that Noah's Ark happened sometime between 10,000 years ago and 4 million years ago depending upon which problem he is presented with. To date, Cap has not provided a single shred of evidence, and has clung on to the story being true. Me and Jabberwocky have been shooting down his absurd claims left and right for the last 200 or so posts. Ranging from the idea that Noah and his family walked around the entire world and personally warned everyone about the flood, to Noah getting drunk off of eating rotten grapes since wine hadn't been invented yet. Recently, we have gotten into discussing the genetic inconsistencies with the story since some people are descendents of neanderthals and others are not and how such a thing could be possible if we are all descendants of Noah as the story claims. Cap has displayed a knowledge of genetics which is consistent with what you would expect from a theist. 

Thanks.

Nothing changes.

that coming from the one who starts off with a logical base and resorts to excuses.  Nothing changes on either side apparently.


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

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

caposkia wrote:

to the contrary, they don't seem perfect, but they were designed perfectly...  the point is perfection can be tainted by those who abuse it.

 

  How does one abuse perfection ?  Christians redefine perfection as having the capacity to become imperfect.  That contradicts what perfection should logically be.    God is perfect, and despite his free will can he act in a way that negates that perfection ?  

you can abuse perfection with choice.. Choice is perfect.. if you think about it, you can choose to make a choice in any given situation.  You can also choose to not make a choice, which is still choosing.  It's still perfect today... what choices we make can be imperfect be it that we're human and we can only go on what our ancestors have left us in genes and legacy.  

Can God make an imperfect choice... by our perspective, no.  God is perfect because as His creation, all we know is what He has given us, which works... perfectly.  Those things that don't work so perfect were created by us, not Him.  

To answer you more directly (because I think you might not see the previous statement as an answer), What you're asking is a catch 22.  if i say no, you'll say God is not perfect because He is unable to do something. e.g. make an imperfect choice... If I say yes, then God is imperfect merely because He can make an imperfect choice... so I'll answer it this way to clarify the reasoning.

No, God can make any choice He wants and it would be perfect.  To be able to make an imperfect choice would deny perfection right there.  Humans were made perfectly.  there was no wrong in them.  what changed all that was eating the fruit.  Then they became imperfect with the ability to choose wrong or make mistakes with the knowledge they were not to have yet.  

Back to God, one cannot say God can make an imperfect choice and call Him perfect, thus for God to not be able to make an imperfect choice makes him perfect.  Maybe better worded not willing to make an imperfect choice.  Be it that He knows all I'm sure He knows how to and is fully aware of how to make an imperfect choice, but if you know the choice is imperfect and have knowledge of making a better choice, why would you choose the imperfect choice?  
 

I hope that didn't get too wordy, but it is a question that many debates have been discussed over.  

pzdw wrote:

   The negative effects of free will from God's created beings ( angels or humans ) still reflects upon God's wilfull choices.  There is no way to divorce God's partial culpability by simply stating that Adam and Eve had free will so it's all on them.  

So then should parents be partially culpable for the crimes their children commit as adults?  

pzdw wrote:

  

If you would like a real world example about free will and the chain of responsibility just think the about Coach Joe Paterno from Penn State.  It was Jerry Sandusky who diddled the little boys in the shower so why did the legal system also go after Paterno and assistant coach Mike Mcqueary ?  Wouldn't that imply that law enforcment considered them responsible as well ?

I don't know that whole story.  It would imply to me that they were aware of the happening and didn't do anything to prevent the crime.  Was Jerry Sandusky's father or mother held responsible for his choices?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: THANK YOU for

iwbiek wrote:

THANK YOU for this sentiment. the ignorant making hasty judgments based on tired truisms and sloppy reading of sloppily written third- or fourth-hand sources unfortunately does not exist only in the realm of scientific debate.

Beyond Saving, take note of bolded


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
and don't ever say that there are gaping holes in the unifying theory of all biology before you know anything CLOSE to enough about it to utter such a statement.

THANK YOU for this sentiment. the ignorant making hasty judgments based on tired truisms and sloppy reading of sloppily written third- or fourth-hand sources unfortunately does not exist only in the realm of scientific debate.

I also quite like how this poster doesn't seem to be a young earth creationist, willing to concede that the flood wasn't world-wide in some points (yet arguing with me as if it WERE world-wide) and that the earth is older than 6018 years old, but the idea that evolution occurred (without the need for supernatural assistance) is still such a bothersome concept for them. There is often a problem with people conflating atheism with evolution. While that's a false dichotomy, I have to say that young earthers are right about one thing; if evolution is true (which it of course is), Christian theology makes no sense. If we evolved from other primates, if we interbred with other homosapiens such as the neanderthals, (both points are true), then it just, doesn't, work!

Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution. 


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

Bonus response

caposkia wrote:

There are gaping holes in Evolution too,

**note added:  I will respond to your longer post at another date, I'm kind of tight on time, but finally was able to get back on the site.

No. There are not! I can't be nice about this. Here, you are either lying, someone has failed to do a good job of teaching you about evolution, or you are simply too stupid (or deluded) to grasp it. 

There are gaps in the fossil record, but to point to those is much like saying that since there are gaps between my home and place of work, then you can't conclude that I used the roads or sidewalks to arrive there. 

Let's be honest... if there were gaps in the roads, e.g. there were no roads that connected consistently from your home to your work in some way or sidewalks that likewise were consistently connected from your house to your work, i would very logically doubt that you were able to use the roads or sidewalks to get there.  That's typically not a problem for most people unless you live in Juneau AK and work out of town.

jabberwocky wrote:

The DNA evidence alone is enough to show us that the theory is bulletproof, unless a finding is uncovered that actually proves it false (as said by J.B.S. Haldane, "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" is done. No such finding has EVER been found).

We can measure the rate of DNA change between yourself and your parents, and everyone else, and from that figure out the rate of change that is possible, and also the rate of change that is the most common. There is no animal that has ever been found with a DNA sequence that has puzzled biologists. All of it shows that it would have come from a common ancestor. Because of that, we could compare the DNA of any two creatures (or plants, or bacteria even) on Earth, and provide an estimate as to how many generations ago the common ancestor existed. Obviously that's with a bigger margin of error the more different the organisms are to each other.

If you have trouble believing that we descended from other primates with no help from a supernatural being:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

^^.....see wiki...and don't ever say that there are gaping holes in the unifying theory of all biology before you know anything CLOSE to enough about it to utter such a statement. Kenneth Miller (a Catholic believe it or not) said about the above something along the lines of "I believe in a creator, but not a deceptive one". He accepts (with no issue...and in fact insists) that this simply happened, and did NOT require any outside help. 

 

Right.  if I believe that, then I also have to beleive we are decendents of plants as well.  There is much similar DNA in many plants and animals.    At least you're willing to admit there are fossile gaps... Do you understand that gaps are consistent and not sporatic?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:*sigh* No

Jabberwocky wrote:

*sigh* No need to discuss this in any thread. If salvation is dependant on belief, and a child is born into a situation where they're going to not believe in god (or at least likely to not believe in god) then god's failure to make his existence more obvious is god actively condemning those people to hell. It's that simple.

I'm only responding to this one at this point.  I had done a list of responses a few days back and I can see that for some reason none of them are here now.  This one is a test to see if it stays... if it does, I'll get to the rest later.  

Still my point stands...this has nothing to do with the response to which you posted this...  you are avoiding at this point

Jabberwocky wrote:

I guess that particular detail doesn't hurt the reliability so much. I read something wrong, my apologies.

As far as spoken word...signatures...what?? Also, what evidence do you have that people were more careful in handing down stories told to them by their parents?

no worries..

What evidence... wh... uh... just look at the history man!  I don't mean Biblical history I mean all history from ancient times... How was history portrayed?  How was family heritage learned?  How were wills carried out?  it's how things were!  Man I thought you at least had a basic grasp of history.  What are we even doing discussing this if you don't have a grasp of even general basic historical fact?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok, so which is it? How did the word spread? Did 8 people cover 510 million square kilometres of earth (317 million square miles for you backwards imperial scale using folk) or did the word spread from person to person who didn't believe it anyway?

On a side note, where does it say that anyone was even warned? Isn't defending genocide fun?

First... it wasn't genocide.. it was annihilation.  

second.  Is it fun ignoring details to make your point?

so which is it... don't know, wasn't there to witness it.  There's little question though that people knew what they were doing was against God.  Regardless, God would be justified to destroy humanity if they were as vile as claimed.  

Also, we discussed how much distance would have to be covered... you're talking Earth wide when they at worst spread to Asia Minor.  

Where does it say anyone was warned?  Were they warned or were they aware?  You seem to be under the belief that a person of Noah's stature built this record breaking sized floating zoo to house all the animals in the world and somehow this got under the radar for 120 years... Isn't it fun defending disbelief?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

The teapot is orbiting the sun actually, between the Earth and Mars, thank you very much.

that's what the Lemur wants you to think Eye-wink

Jabberwocky wrote:

*sigh*. Yes, the story implies that god DID make mistakes! You're almost there!

do you even read before responding?

jabberwocky wrote:

 

 

I've never designed a brain. I'm incapable of doing that. The VERY cutting edge of medical technology right now is growing organs, and the brain is a ways away from even being started I'm sure. The closest thing I've done is some very simply programming...and I mean very simple. I programmed some simple text based games for a graphing calculator, like find a number between 1 and 100 in 6 guesses, where it tells you after each guess if the answer is higher or lower. That game was incapable of calling me an idiot. I could, however, have programmed in such a feature.

Now imagine if one person were to build a computer from the ground up by themselves. All they have is the raw materials. So they get to work. Printing circuit boards, putting together processors, chips, soldering everything to the boards, etc. etc. Then, the thing begins to work, and they program the software to make the computer useful. When they're done, the computer works exactly as designed. The computer does everything that the designer wanted it to do. What do you call that? A good designer! What if, though the computer didn't work as designed? What if it had flaws, where another computer savvy user could program malicious software into it? Would you call them a bad designer? Eh....well, it depends. We are dealing with humans here, and we DO have limitations. Now, what if they programmed it so badly, that even the most computer illiterate person was able to use that computer to steal the world's banking information? Well then you'd call that designer a right idiot, wouldn't you!

According to your story, your god created two people, who were easily co-erced by a talking snake (which the moron put there too!!!), to fuck us all over forever. And you're expecting someone to say that god did a splendid job??  Please!

God created 2 people who had the ability to make a self determined choice.  They were created with self awareness and the ability to determine next steps without any partiuclar input or outside effort.    

The talking snake God put there was not put there by God, rather it was posessed by Satan.  Satan had rebelled in heaven and in fact He had put the snake there so as to coerse Eve into eating the fruit.  Guess you didn't read that part of the Bible yet though.  Yea, Satan's snake was then cursed along with Satan and Jesus talks about the time when Satan and 1/3 of the angels were kicked out of heaven for that choice they made. ...and you're here expecting me to buy your skepticism?  please!


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

you forget too that the 200,000 number has changed as well. 

I haven't forgotten. You have changed the number a dozen times. The bottom line is, that none of the numbers you choose work.

I am entertained that somehow you expect me to achieve something beyond the ability of the professional scholars and historians.  Believing historians don't pinpoint a date because theres NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DO SO... Likewise, there's not enough information to also determine that any of those dates could not have been possible... I get your neanderthal point and there are reasons why I've modified my numbers, but I have yet to see your reasoning for the final number range... instead you have to go back to a number we've already agreed doesn't work.  I'm assuming you're avoiding at this point.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Of course not, because there is no year when the flood could have happened as described- which is my point. Earlier than 200,000 years doesn't work any better than later.

show me your reasoning for the later?  

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Also Neanderthals could have been among those taken onto the boat...

Lol. Okay, let's play with that theory. So God doesn't consider Neanderthals to be human (since in the story NO humans other than Noah and family were on the boat). Noah puts them on the boat like the rest of the animals. That means the flood had to happen roughly 200,000 years ago or earlier (that is the point we know interbreeding started- and yes we do know). Then somehow, after the flood, the Neanderthals managed to multiply and spread out throughout all of Europe and northern Asia really quickly. Fast enough that modern Archaeology can't even tell there was a massive population change, before homo sapiens left Africa (does that mean those of us with Neanderthal DNA are not completely human? That Asians are less human than everyone else? And Africans are more human? Would God have considered a human have sex with a Neanderthal beastiality? Add in the moral question, how do you justify God exterminating not just animals, but also an intelligent, tool making, probably talking species just because he was mad at homo sapiens?) All you are doing is opening up even larger holes in the story.

Or... your case... You went from historical fact to reasoning your way out of it... Do you not see that?

To answer your questions directly though:

...DNA not completely human??? Ok, wanna get technical, if minor variences determine humanity than none of us are human anymore.  

beastiality?  I'm sure that's really not relevent to this conversation, but sure, why not... what?  you were assuming Noah and his family were perfect people?  

How do I justify God...?  uh.. why do you see it as me justifying God?  I don't have that kind of authority.  God justifies himself.  I'm assuming you're asking how I can see it as justified for God to do that... well, God created it all.  God had created it all for us humans... so if He was going to destroy the humans, then the rest of it, which was created for the humans is no longer necessary.  Consider it this way... is it a greater punishment for you to die for your sins or for you to realize you screwed over others and are taking them down with you? 

2 reasons why it's justified.  Obviously it's working for you

 

beyond saving wrote:

 

There are ways of knowing. We have the dates that humans interbred with Neanderthals down to a range of about 100,000 years. We know all sorts of things, that you choose to be willfully ignorant doesn't change that. The point is, there is absolutely no time in history where the story of the flood, as portrayed in the bible, is a possibility. There are simply too many gaping holes in the story that have no rational explanation.

..and who's being willfully ignorant?  100,000 year range.. think about it

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am convinced that a time machine so you could go back and watch Noah not build the Ark yourself wouldn't convince you. I don't think there is anything in the world that will convince you to that a story a 6 year old can tell is fantasy is completely absurd.

 

Likewise, I'm convinced you could go back and witness the whole event and still not be convinced.  I'm sure your reasoning would still be gaps, which of course are there in a story that has very little information about proximity in history.  As I've said to you 1000 times there's just not enough information to date it.  

You want to put things into perspective here, I've given you an approximate 100,000 range of its possibility and other than your Neanderthal DNA as to which we can only theorize as to why or why not and how, you have nothing to go on.  and yes, I've given you a few scenarios that could be the possibility as to which you defended your perspective by personal reasoning.  Are you done being willfully ignorant (as you called me) and consider that what I said from the beginning is really the logcal conclusion here... which is there's really just not enough information in this story to ratinoally date and determine from that dating the possibility of the story?


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

caposkia wrote:

I am entertained that somehow you expect me to achieve something beyond the ability of the professional scholars and historians.  Believing historians don't pinpoint a date because theres NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DO SO...

Historians routinely pinpoint dates and when there isn't enough information they at least manage to have a rough date range of when an event occurred. I have NEVER seen any credible historian say "This event happened, but I have no clue when it might have happened. But I'm sure it must have some point in the last 100 million years." You claim to know that this event happened, I am just asking for a rough range of when it might have been physically possible.  

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Likewise, there's not enough information to also determine that any of those dates could not have been possible...

There is plenty of information. Give me a date, any date, and I can provide a mountain of evidence that the events you claimed were not possible on that date. I have already done so for several dates, which is why you keep changing your assumed date.

 

caposkia wrote:

I get your neanderthal point and there are reasons why I've modified my numbers, but I have yet to see your reasoning for the final number range... instead you have to go back to a number we've already agreed doesn't work.  I'm assuming you're avoiding at this point.

Okay great! We have a number that even you agree doesn't work, so at least we shouldn't see that one again. Which number do you want me to completely debunk and shred next? By determining which numbers are not possible, we can develop and narrow a range. 

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Of course not, because there is no year when the flood could have happened as described- which is my point. Earlier than 200,000 years doesn't work any better than later.

show me your reasoning for the later?  

For starters, we have a lot more data to rely on and predict population levels. We know around 70,000 BC that the human population was dramatically reduced. We also know that other non-human populations were not significantly reduced. There is absolutely no evidence that the population of all animals in the world was ever reduced to two of each species. If it were within the last 200,000 years it would be very obvious in the genetic records. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Or... your case... You went from historical fact to reasoning your way out of it... Do you not see that?

Which historical fact is that? I wasn't aware you have presented any historical facts, but it has been a long time I might have forgotten. 

 

caposkia wrote:

To answer your questions directly though:

...DNA not completely human??? Ok, wanna get technical, if minor variences determine humanity than none of us are human anymore.  

You are the one who declared that Neanderthals are not human. I'm asking because it is quite relevant to the story of the bible whether it is very strict that only homo sapiens are human or whether all hominids are human. 

 

caposkia wrote:

beyond saving wrote:

There are ways of knowing. We have the dates that humans interbred with Neanderthals down to a range of about 100,000 years. We know all sorts of things, that you choose to be willfully ignorant doesn't change that. The point is, there is absolutely no time in history where the story of the flood, as portrayed in the bible, is a possibility. There are simply too many gaping holes in the story that have no rational explanation.

..and who's being willfully ignorant?  100,000 year range.. think about it

There is absolutely nothing ignorant about knowing and admitting the limitations of the data that is available. 100,000 years isn't really that big of a range. The reason we have a large range is that there is a gap between when we have evidence of humans and neanderthals interacting and when there is genetic evidence of interbreeding. There are a number of plausible explanations for why this is. It is possible that interbreeding was rare or nonexistent at first contact. It is possible that the initial populations that had interaction didn't survive. Or it is possible that interbreeding was common during that 100,000 years but we just don't have a large enough genetic sample to prove it. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Likewise, I'm convinced you could go back and witness the whole event and still not be convinced.  I'm sure your reasoning would still be gaps, which of course are there in a story that has very little information about proximity in history.  As I've said to you 1000 times there's just not enough information to date it.

Of course there isn't enough information. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Unfortunately for your fairy tale, we do have evidence of a lot of other things.  

 

caposkia wrote:

You want to put things into perspective here, I've given you an approximate 100,000 range of its possibility and other than your Neanderthal DNA as to which we can only theorize as to why or why not and how, you have nothing to go on.  and yes, I've given you a few scenarios that could be the possibility as to which you defended your perspective by personal reasoning.  Are you done being willfully ignorant (as you called me) and consider that what I said from the beginning is really the logcal conclusion here... which is there's really just not enough information in this story to ratinoally date and determine from that dating the possibility of the story?

Which 100,000 year range do you want to look at? If you promise to actually look at the journals cataloging the physical evidence showing that your story is not consistent with the physical evidence available for that time period, I will happily go through the effort to find it and post links here. 

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:First... it

caposkia wrote:

First... it wasn't genocide.. it was annihilation.  

 

               Hilarious !

 

 

       

caposkia wrote:
The talking snake God put there was not put there by God, rather it was posessed by Satan.  Satan had rebelled in heaven and in fact He had put the snake there so as to coerse Eve into eating the fruit.  Guess you didn't read that part of the Bible yet though.  Yea, Satan's snake was then cursed along with Satan and Jesus talks about the time when Satan and 1/3 of the angels were kicked out of heaven for that choice they made
 

 

   Tall tales anyone ?  ...who needs Harry Potter or the Necromicon when you've got the BIBLE.

 

 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
...and you're here expecting me to buy your skepticism?  please!

 

               Talking snakes ? ...possesed by Satan ? ... epic battles in Heaven ? ...Magic curses ?     yeah, nothing to be skeptical about, there. 

 

Don't forget the stories about the perpetually horny "sons of God" ( Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the Earth in those days...) who bred with with the "daughters of man" to create the Nephilim.  Good stuff !

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to skip some fluff

I'm going to skip some fluff here (just minor pruning)

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

*sigh* No need to discuss this in any thread. If salvation is dependant on belief, and a child is born into a situation where they're going to not believe in god (or at least likely to not believe in god) then god's failure to make his existence more obvious is god actively condemning those people to hell. It's that simple.

I'm only responding to this one at this point.  I had done a list of responses a few days back and I can see that for some reason none of them are here now.  This one is a test to see if it stays... if it does, I'll get to the rest later.  

Still my point stands...this has nothing to do with the response to which you posted this...  you are avoiding at this point

Sorry, no idea what you're going on about at this point. You didn't answer my point at all. I'm going to bed soon so I won't be looking back for context on this one, but I'll be happy to do that another day. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I guess that particular detail doesn't hurt the reliability so much. I read something wrong, my apologies.

As far as spoken word...signatures...what?? Also, what evidence do you have that people were more careful in handing down stories told to them by their parents?

no worries..

What evidence... wh... uh... just look at the history man!  I don't mean Biblical history I mean all history from ancient times... How was history portrayed?  How was family heritage learned?  How were wills carried out?  it's how things were!  Man I thought you at least had a basic grasp of history.  What are we even doing discussing this if you don't have a grasp of even general basic historical fact?

Wait, what? How was history portrayed? Family heritage? Have you ever looked up a family tree? I highly doubt you'll keep going once you get back to a time before the written word existed. We record history, family heritage, write wills, etc. because we DO have the written word to keep such records. The world was far different before the written word, and I would venture that most of those things were viewed as rather unimportant because there was nowhere to write them down (nor did people have the ability to predict that the written word would come). The problem is that since the written word wasn't around, we really have no way to check how accurately things were passed down since we have nothing to check it against. To suggest that it was preserved accurately is nothing but an assertion. 

 

Now what is this general basic historical fact I fail to grasp?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok, so which is it? How did the word spread? Did 8 people cover 510 million square kilometres of earth (317 million square miles for you backwards imperial scale using folk) or did the word spread from person to person who didn't believe it anyway?

On a side note, where does it say that anyone was even warned? Isn't defending genocide fun?

First... it wasn't genocide.. it was annihilation.  

Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

While it's not a "particular ethnic group or nation", genocide still applies. Annihilation would usually mean Noah and his family go too. Definitions aside, you're defending a mass murder. 

Caposkia wrote:

second.  Is it fun ignoring details to make your point?

so which is it... don't know, wasn't there to witness it.  There's little question though that people knew what they were doing was against God.  Regardless, God would be justified to destroy humanity if they were as vile as claimed.  

Which details have I ignored?

The rest of this reads as follows. 

1. I don't know which it was, as I wasn't there (although you seem to not argue that those are the only 2 logical possibilites).

2. #1 is not a problem for me, because I just KNOW that the people knew, regardless of how they came to know. There is no such suggestion in the bible, unless you extrapolate your opinion of god's nature to mean that he wouldn't kill people who were simply acting in unintentional ignorance.

What that also means is that you're implying that the entire world knew the severity of the situation. You're implying that they knew that they were acting in a way that displeased an omnipotent god, and even though they knew the risks involved, they continued to act that way. In the narrative, Noah was certain enough of this that he built a giant boat and coralled a lot of animals onto it. Obviously someone would have to be quite convinced to go so far. Was everyone else simply really, REALLY stupid? Or did god not give them the same evidence as he gave to Noah that this was to happen? 

caposkia wrote:

Also, we discussed how much distance would have to be covered... you're talking Earth wide when they at worst spread to Asia Minor.  

I guess it doesn't really matter, since in the above paragraph you said "There's little question that people knew...". Once again. Once you're backed into a corner with logic, you simply bust out by saying "because god!" You address points (sometimes even comptently) until there is no escape. You then pull out your trump card, because it is impossible in your world-view that god is an asshole. It is also necessary in your world-view for this flood story to be true. Your personal view as you have stated it here is completely irreconcilable. Are you able to see why I think that's the case? If not, you fail to understand logic completely.

caposkia wrote:

Where does it say anyone was warned?  Were they warned or were they aware?  You seem to be under the belief that a person of Noah's stature built this record breaking sized floating zoo to house all the animals in the world and somehow this got under the radar for 120 years... Isn't it fun defending disbelief?  

Even IF word was somehow able to travel around, him building a giant zoo is not evidence of an impending divine flood on its own. You would have to confirm that he was doing it for that reason, and that such a thing was a real threat. How many people in 2012 sold all of their possessions, because they were certain the rapture was coming. These people were 100% convinced. It doesn't mean they were right (and considering they're still here, it means quite the opposite). Anyway, it says nowhere in the bible that anyone set out to spread the word. Not Noah, not people who witnessed him building this thing, nor did it say that god told anyone "shape the hell up, or you're screwed". Also, I may be missing something but I don't see where it says that it took 120 years to build either. 

Defending disbelief. How imprecise can language get? I'm not really "defending" a position in that way. You are. You are asserting that a certain story happened. I am pointing out why your reasoning is bad. When you asserted that people were informed about the flood, and you were shown (by more people than just me) that either people were either spread too far apart, or they lacked communication skills to explain the impending catastrophe, you simply have been avoiding the time question since. You now simply backed into "of course they knew". You haven't said "because god", but you seem to just be asserting that they definitely knew for some reason. 

Is it necessary that people were informed by Noah/his family world-wide, or not? If not and you assert that people just knew, then why didn't you start with that? It's obvious that you thought you could find a reasonable method that this happened WITHOUT having to resort to "because god", but you couldn't. It has been fully logically ruled out, so now you're just saying that they knew. They just....they knew. If they were given the same evidence Noah was (which was enough for him to build an ark), there is no way that literally everyone else on earth would be so stupid to just say "nah, he's bluffing...just because he can talk to us from the sky doesn't mean he can send a flood to the entire earth!". Of course they knew, because god is good, because the bible says he's good, and the holy spirit tells me he's good. Of course people knew, and it was in their sin that they caused themselves to be killed, etc. etc...that is all you have left. Also, of course the flood happened because the bible says so, even though there is no physical evidence left behind for the biggest flood ever for some reason (but we have physical evidence of a shit-ton of other floods). Because the bible says so. Because god.

If that's the case, stop pretending that you have any actual compelling reasons to believe these things if you're just going to backpedal into that cop-out in the end. Your mind is clearly beyond changing. I care more at this point for you to examine these things yourself than responding. You should examine it, and wonder why it seems to fall apart logically at a certain point, and you have to appeal to the divine, who isn't subject to logic. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

*sigh*. Yes, the story implies that god DID make mistakes! You're almost there!

do you even read before responding?

Yes I do. You clearly don't. Addressed below..

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

 

I've never designed a brain. I'm incapable of doing that. The VERY cutting edge of medical technology right now is growing organs, and the brain is a ways away from even being started I'm sure. The closest thing I've done is some very simply programming...and I mean very simple. I programmed some simple text based games for a graphing calculator, like find a number between 1 and 100 in 6 guesses, where it tells you after each guess if the answer is higher or lower. That game was incapable of calling me an idiot. I could, however, have programmed in such a feature.

Now imagine if one person were to build a computer from the ground up by themselves. All they have is the raw materials. So they get to work. Printing circuit boards, putting together processors, chips, soldering everything to the boards, etc. etc. Then, the thing begins to work, and they program the software to make the computer useful. When they're done, the computer works exactly as designed. The computer does everything that the designer wanted it to do. What do you call that? A good designer! What if, though the computer didn't work as designed? What if it had flaws, where another computer savvy user could program malicious software into it? Would you call them a bad designer? Eh....well, it depends. We are dealing with humans here, and we DO have limitations. Now, what if they programmed it so badly, that even the most computer illiterate person was able to use that computer to steal the world's banking information? Well then you'd call that designer a right idiot, wouldn't you!

According to your story, your god created two people, who were easily co-erced by a talking snake (which the moron put there too!!!), to fuck us all over forever. And you're expecting someone to say that god did a splendid job??  Please!

God created 2 people who had the ability to make a self determined choice.  They were created with self awareness and the ability to determine next steps without any partiuclar input or outside effort.    

The talking snake God put there was not put there by God, rather it was posessed by Satan.  Satan had rebelled in heaven and in fact He had put the snake there so as to coerse Eve into eating the fruit.  Guess you didn't read that part of the Bible yet though.  Yea, Satan's snake was then cursed along with Satan and Jesus talks about the time when Satan and 1/3 of the angels were kicked out of heaven for that choice they made. ...and you're here expecting me to buy your skepticism?  please!

Hah, guess I didn't read it? I have. In 2 languages to boot. You, on the other hand, fail to address my point completely. Why did god not prepare Adam and/or Eve for any potential deception if there was a possibility of it occurring in the garden? Eitehr by making their brains better at detecting deception, or by simply telling them "So anyways, there are these angels who raised all sorts of shit up here, and now I've banished them. Anyhow, they're great at deception. You're allowed to do absolutely EVERYTHING here except eat from that one tree. Someone might try to convince you to eat it...just....just don't. Here is what will happen if you do (explanation of death, pain, etc.).". Nnnnope. God did neither. Is someone who grew up in a broken home responsible for their actions? Yes. Is their behaviour a result of their upbringing? Yes. Why is god blame free in this situation?

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
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Historians routinely pinpoint dates and when there isn't enough information they at least manage to have a rough date range of when an event occurred. I have NEVER seen any credible historian say "This event happened, but I have no clue when it might have happened. But I'm sure it must have some point in the last 100 million years." You claim to know that this event happened, I am just asking for a rough range of when it might have been physically possible.  

...and we have meaded through the dating process... instead of seeing it as logical deduction, you're concluding that I move goalposts... I'm sticking with the final dating that works with everything mentioned.

I think that was between 50,000 and 200,000 years....  

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is plenty of information. Give me a date, any date, and I can provide a mountain of evidence that the events you claimed were not possible on that date. I have already done so for several dates, which is why you keep changing your assumed date.

So you can prove a negative!  Impressive, most say that's not logically possible.  Instead, why don't you fill in the gaps with what happened instead if you're so sure it didn't happen.  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Okay great! We have a number that even you agree doesn't work, so at least we shouldn't see that one again. Which number do you want me to completely debunk and shred next? By determining which numbers are not possible, we can develop and narrow a range. 

If that's your approach then you're going into this with a closed mind and there's really no point in trying.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

For starters, we have a lot more data to rely on and predict population levels. We know around 70,000 BC that the human population was dramatically reduced. We also know that other non-human populations were not significantly reduced. There is absolutely no evidence that the population of all animals in the world was ever reduced to two of each species. If it were within the last 200,000 years it would be very obvious in the genetic records. 

What kind of evidence would we be looking for?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which historical fact is that? I wasn't aware you have presented any historical facts, but it has been a long time I might have forgotten. 

I was referring to what you had presented... you presented initially historical fact which allowed me to do some homework and modify my original dating estimate... you later resorted to reasoning your way out of it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

To answer your questions directly though:

...DNA not completely human??? Ok, wanna get technical, if minor variences determine humanity than none of us are human anymore.  

You are the one who declared that Neanderthals are not human. I'm asking because it is quite relevant to the story of the bible whether it is very strict that only homo sapiens are human or whether all hominids are human. 

So none of us are human anymore.  is that what you would conclude?

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is absolutely nothing ignorant about knowing and admitting the limitations of the data that is available. 100,000 years isn't really that big of a range. The reason we have a large range is that there is a gap between when we have evidence of humans and neanderthals interacting and when there is genetic evidence of interbreeding. There are a number of plausible explanations for why this is. It is possible that interbreeding was rare or nonexistent at first contact. It is possible that the initial populations that had interaction didn't survive. Or it is possible that interbreeding was common during that 100,000 years but we just don't have a large enough genetic sample to prove it. 

So finally you admit limitations and accept that's not ignorance... now we're making progress again.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which 100,000 year range do you want to look at? If you promise to actually look at the journals cataloging the physical evidence showing that your story is not consistent with the physical evidence available for that time period, I will happily go through the effort to find it and post links here. 

I've only been telling you this since the beginning... I'm willing to look at any evidence you're willing to put in front of me... personal rants dont' count as evidence.


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

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

caposkia wrote:

First... it wasn't genocide.. it was annihilation.  

 

               Hilarious !

 

 

       

caposkia wrote:
The talking snake God put there was not put there by God, rather it was posessed by Satan.  Satan had rebelled in heaven and in fact He had put the snake there so as to coerse Eve into eating the fruit.  Guess you didn't read that part of the Bible yet though.  Yea, Satan's snake was then cursed along with Satan and Jesus talks about the time when Satan and 1/3 of the angels were kicked out of heaven for that choice they made
 

 

   Tall tales anyone ?  ...who needs Harry Potter or the Necromicon when you've got the BIBLE.

 

 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
...and you're here expecting me to buy your skepticism?  please!

 

               Talking snakes ? ...possesed by Satan ? ... epic battles in Heaven ? ...Magic curses ?     yeah, nothing to be skeptical about, there. 

 

Don't forget the stories about the perpetually horny "sons of God" ( Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the Earth in those days...) who bred with with the "daughters of man" to create the Nephilim.  Good stuff !

 

 

yea because if the Bible is true, it makes absolutely NO sense that people would come up with mythical stories that could parallel "magical" sounding occurances in scripture after the fact...  No one ever makes fiction based on fact..... ever....  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:I'm going

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm going to skip some fluff here (just minor pruning)

no worries, I do the same

Jabberwocky wrote:

Wait, what? How was history portrayed? Family heritage? Have you ever looked up a family tree? I highly doubt you'll keep going once you get back to a time before the written word existed. We record history, family heritage, write wills, etc. because we DO have the written word to keep such records. The world was far different before the written word, and I would venture that most of those things were viewed as rather unimportant because there was nowhere to write them down (nor did people have the ability to predict that the written word would come). The problem is that since the written word wasn't around, we really have no way to check how accurately things were passed down since we have nothing to check it against. To suggest that it was preserved accurately is nothing but an assertion. 

that could be true, except when written word started, there is tons of evidence that family heritage and the history thereof was held in extremely high value... and that much of it was handed down by word of mouth even still though written word had started.  The value of someones word then is beyond our comprehension today... let's just say if you look in history, someones word can determine your whether you live or die, whether you marry, whether you get certain privelages, etc.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Now what is this general basic historical fact I fail to grasp?

the value and degree to which someones word was held.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

While it's not a "particular ethnic group or nation", genocide still applies. Annihilation would usually mean Noah and his family go too. Definitions aside, you're defending a mass murder. 

Murder:

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.  

In other words, it is subjective to what the law of the land says.  You are subjecting this act to a law written 10's of 1000's of years later.  

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Which details have I ignored?

historical, logical, Biblical.

Jabberwocky wrote:

The rest of this reads as follows. 

1. I don't know which it was, as I wasn't there (although you seem to not argue that those are the only 2 logical possibilites).

2. #1 is not a problem for me, because I just KNOW that the people knew, regardless of how they came to know. There is no such suggestion in the bible, unless you extrapolate your opinion of god's nature to mean that he wouldn't kill people who were simply acting in unintentional ignorance.

#2 is based on context of scripture

Jabberwocky wrote:

What that also means is that you're implying that the entire world knew the severity of the situation. You're implying that they knew that they were acting in a way that displeased an omnipotent god, and even though they knew the risks involved, they continued to act that way. In the narrative, Noah was certain enough of this that he built a giant boat and coralled a lot of animals onto it. Obviously someone would have to be quite convinced to go so far. Was everyone else simply really, REALLY stupid? Or did god not give them the same evidence as he gave to Noah that this was to happen? 

well, let's look at it this way... If we consider that this all actually happened and that the Bible is actually the book of life written by inspiration of the Almighty God above who created everything in the universe, are all non-believers really, REALLY stupid, or did god not give them the same evidence as He gives his followers?  or is it that they just don't accept the facts offered to them as true based on their own personal logic.  

IF it's easier to view it the other way, you can input the word "believers" where I wrote "non-believers"  and invert the sentences to say they do accept false information and ignore true fact.  To look at it that way, is it really that hard to believe that people chose to ignore the obvious in such a situation?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

I guess it doesn't really matter, since in the above paragraph you said "There's little question that people knew...". Once again. Once you're backed into a corner with logic, you simply bust out by saying "because god!" You address points (sometimes even comptently) until there is no escape. You then pull out your trump card, because it is impossible in your world-view that god is an asshole. It is also necessary in your world-view for this flood story to be true. Your personal view as you have stated it here is completely irreconcilable. Are you able to see why I think that's the case? If not, you fail to understand logic completely.

I don't feel very cornered... but if that's how you feel... let's really jam me into that corner... what is it that truly put me in that corner so I have to face it head on and not shy away from it???  

I'm still discussing the possibility of word getting around... I do believe that people knew, likely just as much as people "know today" of the Bible... whether they accepted it or believed it is a whole other story.  

Despite that, I'm still willing to discuss the possibility of word getting around in time... which I think statistically I have proven is possible even world wide though it wouldn't be logical that people were spread that far at that time.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Even IF word was somehow able to travel around, him building a giant zoo is not evidence of an impending divine flood on its own. You would have to confirm that he was doing it for that reason, and that such a thing was a real threat. How many people in 2012 sold all of their possessions, because they were certain the rapture was coming. These people were 100% convinced. It doesn't mean they were right (and considering they're still here, it means quite the opposite). Anyway, it says nowhere in the bible that anyone set out to spread the word. Not Noah, not people who witnessed him building this thing, nor did it say that god told anyone "shape the hell up, or you're screwed". Also, I may be missing something but I don't see where it says that it took 120 years to build either. 

You're starting to ramble...  

You first assume that no one at that time looked at what Noah was building and said WTF man... then you'd have to assume Noah ignored their WTF and thus left them guessing.  I don't know how you jump suddenly to people in 2012 selling their posessions based on belief... I can only guess you're going back to the idea of my beilef in the story vs. your unbelief...  

It doesn't say anywhere that anyone spread the word... I will go back to what I said in the beginning that there's not enough evidence to say any of it for sure... let's say there's not enough evidence to conclude that word was not spread... there's 0 reason even from the story to assume they didn't know things were not going right... There may have been a lot of disbelief at the time, we don't know... we do know there was a lot of murder and other horrible happenings that deemed humanity unbearable.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Defending disbelief. How imprecise can language get? I'm not really "defending" a position in that way. You are. You are asserting that a certain story happened. I am pointing out why your reasoning is bad. When you asserted that people were informed about the flood, and you were shown (by more people than just me) that either people were either spread too far apart, or they lacked communication skills to explain the impending catastrophe, you simply have been avoiding the time question since. You now simply backed into "of course they knew". You haven't said "because god", but you seem to just be asserting that they definitely knew for some reason. 

People have not been able to logically show how word could not have gotten around the world in such a time frame when i've shown the math on how it is logical that it could have even by 1 person starting it... also it is logical to conclude that people had not migrated that far yet and at worst they probably made it at max to Asia minor.  

let's assume people didn't know then... does it make a difference?  Is it Gods fault that their parents or the parents of their parents failed to inform them of the God that rules them?  That would be the only way they would not have known their actions would come with consequences... at least from God... they must have assumed their actions had natral consequences...

don't get all huffy puffy about me going back into a corner again... i'm just trying to appease your perspective..  I'm still discussing the idea of word spreading or that they already knew... I'm just offereing the inevitable other angle.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Is it necessary that people were informed by Noah/his family world-wide, or not? If not and you assert that people just knew, then why didn't you start with that? It's obvious that you thought you could find a reasonable method that this happened WITHOUT having to resort to "because god", but you couldn't. It has been fully logically ruled out, so now you're just saying that they knew. They just....they knew. If they were given the same evidence Noah was (which was enough for him to build an ark), there is no way that literally everyone else on earth would be so stupid to just say "nah, he's bluffing...just because he can talk to us from the sky doesn't mean he can send a flood to the entire earth!". Of course they knew, because god is good, because the bible says he's good, and the holy spirit tells me he's good. Of course people knew, and it was in their sin that they caused themselves to be killed, etc. etc...that is all you have left. Also, of course the flood happened because the bible says so, even though there is no physical evidence left behind for the biggest flood ever for some reason (but we have physical evidence of a shit-ton of other floods). Because the bible says so. Because god.

They knew IMO because according to scripture, few if any people didn't accept a higher power... back in that time, there were less options of following other gods though that might have been a possibility still... regardless of what god they followed, they were aware of the God of the Bible just as any other culture written about later in history was aware of the gods of their land.  There's no logical historical reason to consider during that time they had no clue.

Jabberwocky wrote:

If that's the case, stop pretending that you have any actual compelling reasons to believe these things if you're just going to backpedal into that cop-out in the end. Your mind is clearly beyond changing. I care more at this point for you to examine these things yourself than responding. You should examine it, and wonder why it seems to fall apart logically at a certain point, and you have to appeal to the divine, who isn't subject to logic. 

I don't feel like we've actually started discussing something substantial yet... how am I beyond changing?  I have said at the beginning that I don't believe in this story based on the evidence that this story provides. (which is very little if any) rather I take the Bible as a whole along with life experience, science, history, archaeology, people group ancestery.. etc into consideration... so unless we're going to touch on those subjects, it's going to be hard for me to change my perspective on a story I consider fact based on OTHER evidences.    My acceptance of the Noah story is based on deduction through other evidences throughout scripture along with the other points listed... not based on strictly what this story has to offer.  

Whenever you don't have an answer, you seem to go back to the points listed above... just saying

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hah, guess I didn't read it? I have. In 2 languages to boot. You, on the other hand, fail to address my point completely. Why did god not prepare Adam and/or Eve for any potential deception if there was a possibility of it occurring in the garden? Eitehr by making their brains better at detecting deception, or by simply telling them "So anyways, there are these angels who raised all sorts of shit up here, and now I've banished them. Anyhow, they're great at deception. You're allowed to do absolutely EVERYTHING here except eat from that one tree. Someone might try to convince you to eat it...just....just don't. Here is what will happen if you do (explanation of death, pain, etc.).". Nnnnope. God did neither. Is someone who grew up in a broken home responsible for their actions? Yes. Is their behaviour a result of their upbringing? Yes. Why is god blame free in this situation?

based on your responses though, it's easy to assume you haven't read it...  

To the Adam and Eve preparation question:  God said 'don't eat this fruit or you will die'... what more do you need?  There's a lot of speculation into the eating of the fruit and that whole story, but that's for another thread.  Also are you suggesting you've never been decieved?  

...and uh... God did tell them they would die... and as frank as He said it, it implies to me that they understood what that meant.  You claim God did neither... and you laugh when I say you haven't read it... 

Why is God blame free in this situation:  Because God told them explicitly not to eat it or they would die... simple and strait.  

A parent tells their child; "don't touch the stove or you'll get burned... it's hot"  The child touches the stove, who's fault is that?  

some could say the parents because they should have watched their child closer, some would say the child because they were given explicit directions... 

Let's put that scenario into perspective... We are making a federal case out of God allowing Adam and Eve be decieved... If a child is told not to touch a stove and then burns themselves on that stove... should Child Protective Services be called on those parents or can it be toked up to the childs poor judgement resulting in some painful consequences?  


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:yea because

caposkia wrote:

yea because if the Bible is true, it makes absolutely NO sense that people would come up with mythical stories that could parallel "magical" sounding occurances in scripture after the fact...  No one ever makes fiction based on fact..... ever....  

 

   Oh, well that proves it, then !    Que the talking snakes and horny angels...

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


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

caposkia wrote:

...and we have meaded through the dating process... instead of seeing it as logical deduction, you're concluding that I move goalposts... I'm sticking with the final dating that works with everything mentioned.

I think that was between 50,000 and 200,000 years....  

We already covered that, and you already admitted it wasn't possible that recently, which is what started our foray into millions of years ago. Have you presented some new evidence that suggests the previous problems posed with a flood happening earlier than 200,000 years ago are no longer relevant? If you haven't, then just reread pages 1-4. 

 

caposkia wrote:

 

So you can prove a negative!  Impressive, most say that's not logically possible.  Instead, why don't you fill in the gaps with what happened instead if you're so sure it didn't happen.  

I have already covered this several times as well. I don't need to "prove" anything. Logically, absolutely nothing can be proved outside of an axiomatic system. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. The only way to prove anything is to create axioms and you can say that X can be logically proved as long as the set of axioms is correct. I have no interest in getting into the navel gazing that is philosophy which inevitably results in the reality that you can't even prove your own existence. 

What we can do, is look at the available evidence and determine what is most probable, based on the available evidence. When you get to the point where all you have is "well God worked some magic" you have made an assertion that cannot be proven or disproven by its very nature. And it is exactly as nutty as the person who claims they are alien from Alpha Centauri wearing a perfect human bodysuit that can fool all current medical tests into making the alien look human. 

It can be shown, that the evidence we would expect to find if a flood of this magnitude occurred does not exist. We can also show whether or not any evidence of such a flood exists. We can state with absolute certainty, that if our understanding of basic scientific laws are semi-accurate that such a flood is impossible. So unless you can demonstrate that modern geology, meteorology, physics, biology, archaeology etc. are so fundamentally flawed that they are completely unreliable for determining what has or what might happen, you don't have a shred of evidence.  

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Okay great! We have a number that even you agree doesn't work, so at least we shouldn't see that one again. Which number do you want me to completely debunk and shred next? By determining which numbers are not possible, we can develop and narrow a range. 

If that's your approach then you're going into this with a closed mind and there's really no point in trying.  

There is absolutely nothing for me to be open minded about. You have yet to produce any evidence to support your claim. Produce some evidence, and I will consider it open mindedly. I will not be open minded about baseless naked assertions that are contrary to all the available evidence. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

For starters, we have a lot more data to rely on and predict population levels. We know around 70,000 BC that the human population was dramatically reduced. We also know that other non-human populations were not significantly reduced. There is absolutely no evidence that the population of all animals in the world was ever reduced to two of each species. If it were within the last 200,000 years it would be very obvious in the genetic records. 

What kind of evidence would we be looking for?

You would be looking for markers that suggest inbreeding depression, a higher than average rate of IBD (identical by descent) and faster rates of genetic drift. Not just among humans, but among all land animals. For example, we are fairly certain that the human population took a large dip around 80,000 BC... the flood!!!... well not so fast, because other mammals don't show similar evidence of a decline in population and there is no way the population was as low as Noah's family. Humans can only have so many babies, especially without medical care that leads to high infant mortality rates and women dieing during childbirth.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which historical fact is that? I wasn't aware you have presented any historical facts, but it has been a long time I might have forgotten. 

I was referring to what you had presented... you presented initially historical fact which allowed me to do some homework and modify my original dating estimate... you later resorted to reasoning your way out of it.

A dating estimate you have since gone back on. The evidence I presented is precisely why you abandoned your 200,000 years ago theory and went to the million years ago+ theory. Now you went full circle back to your 200,000 years ago theory, is my evidence no longer valid? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

caposkia wrote:

To answer your questions directly though:

...DNA not completely human??? Ok, wanna get technical, if minor variences determine humanity than none of us are human anymore.  

You are the one who declared that Neanderthals are not human. I'm asking because it is quite relevant to the story of the bible whether it is very strict that only homo sapiens are human or whether all hominids are human. 

So none of us are human anymore.  is that what you would conclude?

No. I believe that all intelligent hominids were human. I contend that Neanderthals, homo erectus and all related species- most of which homo sapiens interbred with- were close enough to us to be considered human. You are the one who suddenly declared under bible standards that only homo sapien counts as human. You are the one creating theories and whether or not Neanderthals are human is pretty important. If they are, then you have the original problem that caused you to initially abandon the <200kya theory. If they aren't, then don't you think the bible would at least mention the other hominid species? And did Noah include neanderthals on the boat with him? For your theory to make sense, you have to address how neanderthals survived the flood and/or how different human populations show dramatically different levels of interbreeding with neanderthals. Did the flood occur before or after neanderthals went extinct? 

 

Caposkia wrote:

I've only been telling you this since the beginning... I'm willing to look at any evidence you're willing to put in front of me... personal rants dont' count as evidence.

Okay, try this on for size. We have a review of genetics going back approximately 125,000 years. Show me where they are wrong, or do you wish to concede that humanity wasn't virtually wiped out in a massive flood anytime after approximately 125,000 BC? 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/

 

 

 

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
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

caposkia wrote:

yea because if the Bible is true, it makes absolutely NO sense that people would come up with mythical stories that could parallel "magical" sounding occurances in scripture after the fact...  No one ever makes fiction based on fact..... ever....  

 

   Oh, well that proves it, then !    Que the talking snakes and horny angels...

I can see common sense is not your strong suit


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

...and we have meaded through the dating process... instead of seeing it as logical deduction, you're concluding that I move goalposts... I'm sticking with the final dating that works with everything mentioned.

I think that was between 50,000 and 200,000 years....  

We already covered that, and you already admitted it wasn't possible that recently, which is what started our foray into millions of years ago. Have you presented some new evidence that suggests the previous problems posed with a flood happening earlier than 200,000 years ago are no longer relevant? If you haven't, then just reread pages 1-4. 

You're right.. I went back and reviewed our discussion.  I was guessing here.  I was originally saying 150,000 years or so until you brought some evidence to my attention that it's not likely that close in history, so I agreed that it could more likely be closer to  2 million years... again a very rough estimate... at that point we got on a huge tangent about Noah's ability to get drunk so far back in history and DNA strands... we lost focus on the impossible dating discussion thus why I forgot where we left off.

The 2 million was the final dating that works with everything mentioned... to discuss that further we can again discuss how a writer would portray the story vs. what might have really happened... we already tangented on that as well, but if need be we can go back to it.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

 

So you can prove a negative!  Impressive, most say that's not logically possible.  Instead, why don't you fill in the gaps with what happened instead if you're so sure it didn't happen.  

I have already covered this several times as well. I don't need to "prove" anything. Logically, absolutely nothing can be proved outside of an axiomatic system. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. The only way to prove anything is to create axioms and you can say that X can be logically proved as long as the set of axioms is correct. I have no interest in getting into the navel gazing that is philosophy which inevitably results in the reality that you can't even prove your own existence. 

What we can do, is look at the available evidence and determine what is most probable, based on the available evidence. When you get to the point where all you have is "well God worked some magic" you have made an assertion that cannot be proven or disproven by its very nature. And it is exactly as nutty as the person who claims they are alien from Alpha Centauri wearing a perfect human bodysuit that can fool all current medical tests into making the alien look human. 

It can be shown, that the evidence we would expect to find if a flood of this magnitude occurred does not exist. We can also show whether or not any evidence of such a flood exists. We can state with absolute certainty, that if our understanding of basic scientific laws are semi-accurate that such a flood is impossible. So unless you can demonstrate that modern geology, meteorology, physics, biology, archaeology etc. are so fundamentally flawed that they are completely unreliable for determining what has or what might happen, you don't have a shred of evidence.

So you go from not needing to prove anything to at the final paragraph again trying to prove a negative.  Pick your focus.  either you're not going to try to prove anything and actually try to show me how what i believe cannot possibly be true, or you're going to try to defend your understanding with negative proofs.  

We've already talked about proof of such a flood being possible from the YEC, but of course you got stuck on the fact that he is a YEC and not that he found evidence that proved such a flood could happen.  

You also end that paragraph with; "you don't have a shred of evidence"...... I must ask you if you remember... What have I been saying on this thread since the start of my posts?  Can you answer that directly?

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

There is absolutely nothing for me to be open minded about. You have yet to produce any evidence to support your claim. Produce some evidence, and I will consider it open mindedly. I will not be open minded about baseless naked assertions that are contrary to all the available evidence. 

Either you're going to approach it open mindedly or not... Being open minded means you consider everything logically and don't become ignorant when your perspective doesn't agree with the reasoning.  (I don't mean that offensively)

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

You would be looking for markers that suggest inbreeding depression, a higher than average rate of IBD (identical by descent) and faster rates of genetic drift. Not just among humans, but among all land animals. For example, we are fairly certain that the human population took a large dip around 80,000 BC... the flood!!!... well not so fast, because other mammals don't show similar evidence of a decline in population and there is no way the population was as low as Noah's family. Humans can only have so many babies, especially without medical care that leads to high infant mortality rates and women dieing during childbirth.  

yea, i'm not aware of any links to the flood with that decline in population.  I don't think we have such markers for any kind millions of years ago.  Consider that we were only "fairly certain" 80,000 years ago... how much less certain can we be a few million years more?

Beyond Saving wrote:

A dating estimate you have since gone back on. The evidence I presented is precisely why you abandoned your 200,000 years ago theory and went to the million years ago+ theory. Now you went full circle back to your 200,000 years ago theory, is my evidence no longer valid? 

no, i just forgot where we had progressed to.  We took a multi-page tangent on the dating topic.  As you can tell, the dating of the story is not as much of a concern to me as it seems to be to you.  mainly because of that thing i was claiming when I first started posting here... what was it again???

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

No. I believe that all intelligent hominids were human. I contend that Neanderthals, homo erectus and all related species- most of which homo sapiens interbred with- were close enough to us to be considered human. You are the one who suddenly declared under bible standards that only homo sapien counts as human. You are the one creating theories and whether or not Neanderthals are human is pretty important. If they are, then you have the original problem that caused you to initially abandon the <200kya theory. If they aren't, then don't you think the bible would at least mention the other hominid species? And did Noah include neanderthals on the boat with him? For your theory to make sense, you have to address how neanderthals survived the flood and/or how different human populations show dramatically different levels of interbreeding with neanderthals. Did the flood occur before or after neanderthals went extinct? 

I don't believe I ever claimed anything about humanity in the Bible genetically speaking.  If so, my apologies.  There's nothing to consider variations of humanity in the Bible didn't exist.   

Considering the last concluded dating of the flood being more likely 2 million years give r take, I'd say way before they were extinct.  

Let's consider this, how long did it take for neanderthals to evolve from their ancestreal kind?  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Okay, try this on for size. We have a review of genetics going back approximately 125,000 years. Show me where they are wrong, or do you wish to concede that humanity wasn't virtually wiped out in a massive flood anytime after approximately 125,000 BC? 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/

 

 

 

yea, again.  I had forgotten where we had progressed to... a lot's been happening and honestly I had a major memory laps for that.  I still stick to the 2 milliion mark.  


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia wrote:You also end

Caposkia wrote:

You also end that paragraph with; "you don't have a shred of evidence"...... I must ask you if you remember... What have I been saying on this thread since the start of my posts?  Can you answer that directly?

That God is moral because he warned all humans about the flood before the flood. Which led to me pointing out that humans were dispersed too far, which led to you claiming that it must have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago (reasoning that humans were closer together then) which led to me pointing out that as recently as 2 million years ago, humans were pretty spread out. The reason why the dating is relevent is because your entire argument that God is moral if the entire story as reported is true rests on people being warned before being exterminated. When I pointed out that virtually nothing in the story could have happened 2 million years ago, you made all sorts of fantastic claims.

 

[Caposkia] 

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

There is absolutely nothing for me to be open minded about. You have yet to produce any evidence to support your claim. Produce some evidence, and I will consider it open mindedly. I will not be open minded about baseless naked assertions that are contrary to all the available evidence. 

Either you're going to approach it open mindedly or not... Being open minded means you consider everything logically and don't become ignorant when your perspective doesn't agree with the reasoning.  (I don't mean that offensively)

 

I am willing to consider everything logically. Where have I not? Every rationalization you have presented, I considered it and then provided you with information as to why your supposition is logically impossible. You would be well off reading your last sentence as virtually every supposition you have made relies on ignorance to believe. Which is why you have needed to continually evolve your assertions to fit around the evidence you have been presented to move to another area where you are ignorant. One was to minimize having to change your assumptions is to look at the evidence and then draw your hypotheses from that. However, it is clear that you have no evidence and just make up your hypotheses running from one area of ignorance to another. And no doubt I have missed a lot of evidence because archaeology and genetics are merely passive interests of mine. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

yea, i'm not aware of any links to the flood with that decline in population.  I don't think we have such markers for any kind millions of years ago.  Consider that we were only "fairly certain" 80,000 years ago... how much less certain can we be a few million years more?

Which is why I didn't use that argument to refute the idea that it happened a few million years ago. A few million years ago, genetics points to much larger problems with the flood story. For example, humans a couple million years ago were physically incapable of complex speech. How could they have communicated the abstract idea of a creator god about to drown the world in a flood?

Although, I think the much stronger argument for that era lies in the absurd notion that the technology in the story could have existed at that time. When you consider it logically, it is highly unlikely that a man two million years ago was able to build a boat at all, let alone one that could survive a prolonged storm at seas carrying a family and several types of animals. Your only possible solution here is to become ignorant because your perspective doesn't agree with the logical reasoning a 6 year old is capable of.

Have you ever tried to build a boat? I have built a canoe once. It isn't easy and it isn't intuitive. Even with modern books giving me step by step instructions and modern tools I found it difficult. My canoe worked, but it certainly wasn't surviving a storm at sea for an hour let alone weeks. Then when you compare it to actual evidence of early boats (about 50,000 years ago) were extremely crude and only useful for short distances. The most common form being dugouts. Some archaeologists suggest that Neanderthals actually discovered sailing around 100kya because evidence of them and their tools has been found on numerous islands. No evidence of actual boats have been found, but I find the story plausible. A few archaeologists argue that the first boats were around a million years ago in Indonesia but their sole evidence is that humans were on islands. Since the largest gap between islands is only 14 miles, it is quite possible that ancients swam that far. But whatever boats they had were almost certainly very crude as their tools which we have found weren't capable of making anything extravagant. The idea that someone back then (let alone a million years earlier) would have been capable of building a seafaring vessel that would be superior to what humans were making in 5,000 BC flys in the face of logic. There are reasons why in every seafaring group of humans we see a progressive evolution in the design of their boats. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

no, i just forgot where we had progressed to.  We took a multi-page tangent on the dating topic.  As you can tell, the dating of the story is not as much of a concern to me as it seems to be to you.  mainly because of that thing i was claiming when I first started posting here... what was it again???

That the God in the story who slaughtered all the innocents is moral because he warned them before killing them. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Let's consider this, how long did it take for neanderthals to evolve from their ancestreal kind?  

Depends on how you define the line. Neanderthal traits started to show up around 600kya and it is generally regarded that they deserve their own subspecies classification around 350kya.

 

Caposkia wrote:

yea, again.  I had forgotten where we had progressed to... a lot's been happening and honestly I had a major memory laps for that.  I still stick to the 2 milliion mark.  

Fair enough. I've had to do a bit of rereading myself. This thread has been meandering around. 

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
Beyond Saving wrote:Caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

Caposkia wrote:

You also end that paragraph with; "you don't have a shred of evidence"...... I must ask you if you remember... What have I been saying on this thread since the start of my posts?  Can you answer that directly?

That God is moral because he warned all humans about the flood before the flood. Which led to me pointing out that humans were dispersed too far, which led to you claiming that it must have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago (reasoning that humans were closer together then) which led to me pointing out that as recently as 2 million years ago, humans were pretty spread out. The reason why the dating is relevent is because your entire argument that God is moral if the entire story as reported is true rests on people being warned before being exterminated. When I pointed out that virtually nothing in the story could have happened 2 million years ago, you made all sorts of fantastic claims.

no, how about that there isn't enough evidence to conclude anything about this story on... in other words, you and I both don't have a "shred of evidence" to support our side on this story.  

You pointed out Virtually nothing could have happened in this story 2 million years ago and I discussed with you how they could have as to which you came back with... I'll quote you here "all sorts of fantastic claims"  It really comes down to how subjective you want to be to defend your belief... e.g... Noah couldn't have gotten drunk on wine therefore God doesn't exist despite the fact that authors would use current knowledge and not necessarily understand the historocity of the story they're telling thus the fact that Noah got drunk stands, on wine can be up for debate.  

Love the Neanderthal DNA excuse as to which we both can come up with circular reasoning to defend our side on it, either way, not supportive of your perspecive that this story could not have happened at all in history.  Only that humans somewhere down the line share that DNA... not that we don't share DNA with other animal AND plant species...  The fact that we're even bringing up DNA should ring some church bells for you considering their complexity.

You may not accept this reasoning above, but that's the beauty of having a choice..

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am willing to consider everything logically. Where have I not? Every rationalization you have presented, I considered it and then provided you with information as to why your supposition is logically impossible. You would be well off reading your last sentence as virtually every supposition you have made relies on ignorance to believe. Which is why you have needed to continually evolve your assertions to fit around the evidence you have been presented to move to another area where you are ignorant. One was to minimize having to change your assumptions is to look at the evidence and then draw your hypotheses from that. However, it is clear that you have no evidence and just make up your hypotheses running from one area of ignorance to another. And no doubt I have missed a lot of evidence because archaeology and genetics are merely passive interests of mine. 

how about the sheer fact that I changed my dating assumption based on facts that you presented and you have used that since as an excuse to claim I'm evolving my assertions.  That's not very logical or rational.  Also to assume it's ignorance to believe is not logical be it that some very intelligent minded people believe.  You get very sidetracked on the basic understanding of belief and somehow it seems you're presesnting the Noah story as the basis of all Christian belief, which is also not at all logical.  

If you were able to focus strictly on the evidences of the Noah story, we would have been done a long time ago because reading carefully we both have agreed there really is no evidence in hand to support or discredit this story.  You would at this point bring up again those things you mentioned, e.g. neanderthal dna, the ability to garden based on human historical record and archaeology, formation of tools, etc... which leads to no further conclusion on your end without a concrete dating of this story.  We have so little evidence of anything 2 million years back that no one can really claim anything about how life was back then.  There is evidence of technology being lost and rediscovered.  Gardening likely is one of those things... among likely the tools used... no we have little if any evidence of modified tools that might allow X to happen 2 million years ago, but who's to say that if there were tools they would have been made out of anything that would have lasted the test of time?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Which is why I didn't use that argument to refute the idea that it happened a few million years ago. A few million years ago, genetics points to much larger problems with the flood story. For example, humans a couple million years ago were physically incapable of complex speech. How could they have communicated the abstract idea of a creator god about to drown the world in a flood?

how are we so certain of the humans ability of complex speech so far back?  Again remember we discussed how written word came much much later than complex speech logicallly would have.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Although, I think the much stronger argument for that era lies in the absurd notion that the technology in the story could have existed at that time. When you consider it logically, it is highly unlikely that a man two million years ago was able to build a boat at all, let alone one that could survive a prolonged storm at seas carrying a family and several types of animals. Your only possible solution here is to become ignorant because your perspective doesn't agree with the logical reasoning a 6 year old is capable of.

that's the only possible solution?  No regard to ancient cultures building boats in a much more creative way than we would consider now to compensate for issues with the materials they used at the time.  Why would it be ignorance to consider such technology existed?  Because you have no evidence today that it did?  That sounds like an ignorant approach if you ask me.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Have you ever tried to build a boat? I have built a canoe once. It isn't easy and it isn't intuitive. Even with modern books giving me step by step instructions and modern tools I found it difficult. My canoe worked, but it certainly wasn't surviving a storm at sea for an hour let alone weeks. Then when you compare it to actual evidence of early boats (about 50,000 years ago) were extremely crude and only useful for short distances. The most common form being dugouts. Some archaeologists suggest that Neanderthals actually discovered sailing around 100kya because evidence of them and their tools has been found on numerous islands. No evidence of actual boats have been found, but I find the story plausible. A few archaeologists argue that the first boats were around a million years ago in Indonesia but their sole evidence is that humans were on islands. Since the largest gap between islands is only 14 miles, it is quite possible that ancients swam that far. But whatever boats they had were almost certainly very crude as their tools which we have found weren't capable of making anything extravagant. The idea that someone back then (let alone a million years earlier) would have been capable of building a seafaring vessel that would be superior to what humans were making in 5,000 BC flys in the face of logic. There are reasons why in every seafaring group of humans we see a progressive evolution in the design of their boats. 

its true that it might be hard to believe such a boat could have been built with such complexity, however the technology aboard would been used as far back as our historical records can show in wooden boat making.  Nothing elaborate or new in this boat other than its size... We must also consider that this boat was not designed for travel, rather just to be able to stay afloat while in a storm.  No indication as to how windy it had gotten, only that the waters rose.  If it was a legitmate heavy downpoor storm with little wind, depending on where the boat was positioned, it is also logical to conclude the waters did not get severely choppy, especially if it was protected most of the time by high mountains or hills.  Granted the water levels eventually would have exceeded those hills, but by then the storm was understood to be winding down.  The waters could have still been moderately still... 

Also lets consider the most obvious reasoning for such a design... The Bible states that God told Noah to build it and gave him specific measurements... Sounds to me like Noah had some extra insight on the design that others wouldn't have had...  Is it possible that some details as far as stability design had been left out of scripture?  Sure its' possible... is it ignorant to assume?  no... did Noah have to be told anything more for the boat to still work if he indeed had basic structural knowledge of boats?  of course not.  If he didn't obviously God would have had to tell him what a boat was... Scripture seems to indicate by the wording that Noah knew what God was talking about when God mentioned it.   

if God's real, it is logical to assume God gave him all the knowledge he would need to build a stable boat for the storm God was planning on bringing.  

So I think your case needs to be more about' "is God real?"  seeing as that's the angle you keep leaning towards... not for this thread though.

Beyond Saving wrote:

That the God in the story who slaughtered all the innocents is moral because he warned them before killing them. 

I don't remember the Bible saying they were innocent.. to the contrary actually.  

If you're talking about children, the actions of the adults affect children negatively even today.  As hard as it is for you to accept, we are responsible for what happens to our youth, even in this story they were responsible for what happened, not God.  God only brought the judgement for their actions.  They paid the consequences.   

Beyond Saving wrote:

Depends on how you define the line. Neanderthal traits started to show up around 600kya and it is generally regarded that they deserve their own subspecies classification around 350kya.

So considering that the flood likely happened earlier than that, then it's not out of the question to see why humans would have their DNA flood or no flood.  


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
and don't ever say that there are gaping holes in the unifying theory of all biology before you know anything CLOSE to enough about it to utter such a statement.


THANK YOU for this sentiment. the ignorant making hasty judgments based on tired truisms and sloppy reading of sloppily written third- or fourth-hand sources unfortunately does not exist only in the realm of scientific debate.

I also quite like how this poster doesn't seem to be a young earth creationist, willing to concede that the flood wasn't world-wide in some points (yet arguing with me as if it WERE world-wide) and that the earth is older than 6018 years old, but the idea that evolution occurred (without the need for supernatural assistance) is still such a bothersome concept for them. There is often a problem with people conflating atheism with evolution. While that's a false dichotomy, I have to say that young earthers are right about one thing; if evolution is true (which it of course is), Christian theology makes no sense. If we evolved from other primates, if we interbred with other homosapiens such as the neanderthals, (both points are true), then it just, doesn't, work!

Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution. 

No solid links?? Did you read the article I posted regarding human chromosome #2? If not, go back a page and read it please. I don't know about you, but to me (and probably everyone else who isn't in denial) that is a solid smoking gun. We can pinpoint the chromosomal fusion that resulted in us having one less chromosome pairings than the other great apes. Our 2nd chromosome has an extra large telomere (typically found on the ends of chromosomes) in the centre of it, and 2 centromeres instead of one (typically found in the middle) at the halfway points between the telomeres. 

You state in another post that fossil gaps are a problem. However, fossil gaps are simply evidence of one fact: fossilization doesn't happen all too often, so we only get a small percentage of the puzzle, but we find that our predictions are quite accurate whenever we find more pieces. We have a large number of primate skulls, and a gradual change of the skull to one that contains a bigger brain is something we can see. Similarly, we can see primate pelvises of varying proportions showing the gradual change that allowed for bipedalism (and far more painful birthing for the poor women who have to go through it). Of course, once again, the DNA evidence is enough. When the DNA was sequenced to find out how old our most recent common ancestors were, it fit within the range of estimates provided by fossil evidence. Of course, the range was quite a wide gap because for a long time people were unsure as to whether humans evolved concurrently in multiple places or only once in Africa. DNA evidence helped us confirm that the latter theory is correct, although interbreeding with neanderthals did occur, and is evidenced by DNA as well. That is consistent with where we find neanderthal fossils, and the fact that those of more recent African origin do not contain neanderthal DNA. 

So once again, do not say that there is a problem in the foundation concept of biology if you have no clue what you're talking about. You say

caposkia wrote:
Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution

I have just provided you with two separate types of evidence. Fossil evidence, and DNA evidence (which came later). The DNA evidence corroborated what we estimated using the fossil evidence. Can you tell me where this "no evidence" is? Can you come up with an actual problem in the theory? Failing to do so, what you should say is not "Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution". What you should say is "I don't understand the theory of evolution well enough for it to make any sense to me." So put up, or shut up. Nobody who does science in the field of biology doubts this. Any young earth creationists in the fields of biology (which sadly is possible) are not doing science at least when it comes to evaluating the theory of evolution. They are not leaving their biases at the door. That is what scientists should do; leave bias at the door, and follow the evidence. The evidence I have presented if I'm right, points to the theory of evolution being true. If you're right, it points to god being one hell of a prankster.

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.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Let's be

caposkia wrote:

Let's be honest... if there were gaps in the roads, e.g. there were no roads that connected consistently from your home to your work in some way or sidewalks that likewise were consistently connected from your house to your work, i would very logically doubt that you were able to use the roads or sidewalks to get there.  That's typically not a problem for most people unless you live in Juneau AK and work out of town.

That's fair. To use your analogy, evolution isn't like looking at 2 locations, finding no way across, and making it up. Evolution is more like finding a bike path in a valley, and finding it partially washed away (topical analogy to this thread too!). Do you assume from seeing the bike path that nobody ever could have used it to get from one end of the valley to the other? No. Do you assume that it always just used to lead to the river so that cyclists can ride into that? No you don't. You assume that the path changed due to something else. If you see a road next to a river that you know flooded recently that is not even useable anymore with only some tiny pieces of asphalt there, do you say "well, nobody could have EVER used that road?" or "Man, those construction workers were lazy, or had too little asphalt to do this job" or "Who the hell designed THIS road like this?" No. You. Don't! We make assumptions based on what we do know of how people build roads, and then try to figure out why it's different. Seeing a river nearby, and other nearby landscape showing evidence of higher water levels, we can conclude that the river flooded the road, and ruined it. Your analogy ignores important points.

Not to mention that the reason I used the analogy in the first place is to outline that for me to get from point A to point B, I have to physically travel the distance in between rather than teleport. The point is that evolution happens quite gradually. We know by comparing our DNA to other primates and then comparing say your DNA to your parents, we can make quite accurate predictions on how many generations it would take for a common ancestor of ours to split to ourselves, chimps, and bonobos. But I guess there's still no evidence.

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

The DNA evidence alone is enough to show us that the theory is bulletproof, unless a finding is uncovered that actually proves it false (as said by J.B.S. Haldane, "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" is done. No such finding has EVER been found).

We can measure the rate of DNA change between yourself and your parents, and everyone else, and from that figure out the rate of change that is possible, and also the rate of change that is the most common. There is no animal that has ever been found with a DNA sequence that has puzzled biologists. All of it shows that it would have come from a common ancestor. Because of that, we could compare the DNA of any two creatures (or plants, or bacteria even) on Earth, and provide an estimate as to how many generations ago the common ancestor existed. Obviously that's with a bigger margin of error the more different the organisms are to each other.

If you have trouble believing that we descended from other primates with no help from a supernatural being:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

^^.....see wiki...and don't ever say that there are gaping holes in the unifying theory of all biology before you know anything CLOSE to enough about it to utter such a statement. Kenneth Miller (a Catholic believe it or not) said about the above something along the lines of "I believe in a creator, but not a deceptive one". He accepts (with no issue...and in fact insists) that this simply happened, and did NOT require any outside help. 

 

Right.  if I believe that, then I also have to beleive we are decendents of plants as well.  There is much similar DNA in many plants and animals.    At least you're willing to admit there are fossile gaps... Do you understand that gaps are consistent and not sporatic?  

No you don't. You can believe that us and plants had a common ancestor (which to my research seems to indeed be the case). Just because plants are a simpler form of life speaking in coloquial terms (where no brain is simpler by default) doesn't mean that we had to come from them. Did you even check what biologists believe before you posted that? I have a feeling you didn't. If I'm not quite certain about something I say, I typically do. 

Of course there are fossil gaps. Fossilization is a rare occurence, so we should expect gaps. What do you mean by "gaps are consistent and not sporatic?" Are you suggesting that we have very uniform gaps between species we find, therefore it suggests that there are no transitions? Because I would strongly disagree with that. I have not seen anything to suggest that the gaps are uniform. In fact, those who study biology honestly will tell you of each fossil what is more human-like, what is more chimp-like, what is more gorilla-like even. It shows that there is a transition because it does bear resemblance to both. If there IS something that shows a uniform disconnect between every fossil that has been classified, please provide proof. 

Creationists agree on most fossils on whether they're human or ape, because they show more attributes of one than the other. The ones that bear resemblance to both (it seems that Australopithecines are where it really starts to get muddled), real biologists will, once again, point to which features resemble what more. Creationists, on the other hand, will simply be split on whether the fossil is human or ape. While creationist dogma will always say that evolution isn't true, they don't have a consistent opinion on which australopithecines were what. This is because (in my opinion) creationists have that dogma, and make it up as they go along. When they see evidence of something showing both human and other ape-like attributes, they draw a line in the sand (with each creationist drawing a different line BTW) and say "this is a human fossil" or "this is an ape fossil". That is a ridiculous stance that is impossible to defend without lying (to oneself, AND others). 

So, as I've said, care to provide any actual problems in evolution? Once again, I repeat what Haldane said. Find me "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" or any other solid fossil that's in the wrong place that suggest that we didn't evolve as biologists claim. Find me ONE! I have provided you DNA evidence that is strong evidence to support relatively recent common ancestry between humans and all other living apes. Provide me one piece of evidence to show that I'm 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.


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

caposkia wrote:

that could be true, except when written word started, there is tons of evidence that family heritage and the history thereof was held in extremely high value... and that much of it was handed down by word of mouth even still though written word had started.  The value of someones word then is beyond our comprehension today... let's just say if you look in history, someones word can determine your whether you live or die, whether you marry, whether you get certain privelages, etc.  

How? There is literally no way to verify this if the written word didn't exist. It's possible that people who conned their way to riches a generation ago could have conned a fake family history as well. You keep on asserting this, and accusing me of not knowing history. If you're right, then you're right, but by re-asserting it you are not convincing me. Show me a study that has been done that suggests that what you're saying is true. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Now what is this general basic historical fact I fail to grasp?

the value and degree to which someones word was held.

See above

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

While it's not a "particular ethnic group or nation", genocide still applies. Annihilation would usually mean Noah and his family go too. Definitions aside, you're defending a mass murder. 

Murder:

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.  

In other words, it is subjective to what the law of the land says.  You are subjecting this act to a law written 10's of 1000's of years later.  

Sorry, but it's a law that I happen to agree with, and I would contend that you do as well. Because a murder law may have not existed back then, it does not mean that we can examine events of the time (real or mythical) and decide whether or not it would be a violation of the laws we have now come up with. In that light, I contend still that if it happened in any sense similar to what the bible says, it is murder. The book contends that everyone minus 8 people was an immoral thug. I don't think that the human species could have even reached a reasonable population number were that the case. Therefore, in the story, it would mean that god deemed them immoral for crimes that aren't real (but are in the bible) like disobedience to god, blasphemy, idolatry, etc., while at the same time not showing enough evidence for his existence. Even though I think that the old testament god is a thug, if I found him to be real and unoverthrowable, I would have no choice but to worship him. These people clearly were not convinced that he was real even though he was easily able to convince Noah. Then he killed everyone for their disbelief. Today, that would count as murder whichever way you cut it....or drown it. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Which details have I ignored?

historical, logical, Biblical.

I would argue the same about you. I asked you "which" details. As far as the details you've ignored:

1. I brought up that the bible is not concise at all as to what people's immoral nature was to warrant their death by drowing.

2. I brought up that the bible does not posit that anyone was informed or warned of their immorality, and the impending punishment

3. I brought up that 8 people traversing the entirety of human populations to inform them of such was unfeasible, (especially since they had to simultaneously build a giant boat and corral 2 of each animal onto it of the clean ones, 7 of the clean, I forgot to add that part)

4. I brought up that if word were to travel from person to person, they wouldn't believe it anyway, hence it would be safe to assume that people would have been killed in the flood without knowing why. 

To put this in question form:

How did the people who weren't Noah & his family know about god? How did they know that they were immoral? And why did they continue to act the way they did if they knew that god was all powerful and resistance was futile?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

The rest of this reads as follows. 

1. I don't know which it was, as I wasn't there (although you seem to not argue that those are the only 2 logical possibilites).

2. #1 is not a problem for me, because I just KNOW that the people knew, regardless of how they came to know. There is no such suggestion in the bible, unless you extrapolate your opinion of god's nature to mean that he wouldn't kill people who were simply acting in unintentional ignorance.

#2 is based on context of scripture

Perhaps. However, for every verse that tells you that god is fair, righteous, and all-loving, there is another verse where he asks someone to slaughter his son (only to say "psyche!&quotEye-wink or to stone to death wives who aren't virgins on their wedding nights, or to stone disobedient children, or to kill homosexuals, or personally kills people who splooge in the wrong place, or tell Jephthah to kill his daughter (and let him do it, unlike with Isaac)....I can go on. These things are not consistent with someone who is fair, righteous (although self-righteous maybe) and all-loving. It's easy to defend the "context of scripture" when you ignore the parts that are uncomfortable. If the god of the bible is real, he's a prick (at best!). 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

What that also means is that you're implying that the entire world knew the severity of the situation. You're implying that they knew that they were acting in a way that displeased an omnipotent god, and even though they knew the risks involved, they continued to act that way. In the narrative, Noah was certain enough of this that he built a giant boat and coralled a lot of animals onto it. Obviously someone would have to be quite convinced to go so far. Was everyone else simply really, REALLY stupid? Or did god not give them the same evidence as he gave to Noah that this was to happen? 

well, let's look at it this way... If we consider that this all actually happened and that the Bible is actually the book of life written by inspiration of the Almighty God above who created everything in the universe, are all non-believers really, REALLY stupid, or did god not give them the same evidence as He gives his followers?  

IF it's true, the answer is the latter.

caposkia wrote:

or is it that they just don't accept the facts offered to them as true based on their own personal logic.  

You offered two options above which would be the 2 logical possibilities were the book true. Then you offer this third option here (poorly written I must add), which is a little like the first option, but far more accusatory. It implies that we're not so dumb, but we simply willingly deny him somehow based on our "own personal logic" even though logic isn't a matter of opinion. Logic just is. But your implication is clear. You are implying that we are deliberately denying him like those people that he drowned in the flood. My contention is that if he's real, he has not provided evidence. I require no mental gymnastics to justify this position. 

caposkia wrote:

IF it's easier to view it the other way, you can input the word "believers" where I wrote "non-believers"  and invert the sentences to say they do accept false information and ignore true fact.  To look at it that way, is it really that hard to believe that people chose to ignore the obvious in such a situation?  

What? That was very poorly written but I'll try to answer you. If the opposite is the case, that the bible is all myth, then it would follow that believers do accept false information and ignore facts, yes. In this thread, you contend that the flood was real. When it was brought up to you that people would have to be informed to be able to know that they were immoral (and at risk of this flood), you got caught in a situation where either our language was too primitive to explain, or people were spread too far apart to explain it to everyone. You are ignoring these facts, and simply asserting that the flood must have happened anyway. Also, above, you ignore facts about biology. You are accepting false information (the bible), and ignoring "true fact" (foundational concepts that tie all of biology together). 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I guess it doesn't really matter, since in the above paragraph you said "There's little question that people knew...". Once again. Once you're backed into a corner with logic, you simply bust out by saying "because god!" You address points (sometimes even comptently) until there is no escape. You then pull out your trump card, because it is impossible in your world-view that god is an asshole. It is also necessary in your world-view for this flood story to be true. Your personal view as you have stated it here is completely irreconcilable. Are you able to see why I think that's the case? If not, you fail to understand logic completely.

I don't feel very cornered... but if that's how you feel... let's really jam me into that corner... what is it that truly put me in that corner so I have to face it head on and not shy away from it???  

Did Noah's family spread the word so long ago that language wasn't develped enough to explain it (impossible)? or

Did Noah's family spread the word once language was sufficient to explain it (at which point people would have been spread too far apart)?

These are the possibilites we have come up based on things you said. "Of course people were warned" (to paraphrase you) you said. The two things just listed above are absolute logical problems with the assertion that people were warned. Let's continue.

caposkia wrote:

I'm still discussing the possibility of word getting around... I do believe that people knew, likely just as much as people "know today" of the Bible... whether they accepted it or believed it is a whole other story.  

I know today of the bible. I know it's a book. I know that a large chunk of the world population accept it as more than "just a book", despite calling the Quran, the Book of Mormon, older mythological texts "just books". Of course accepting or believing in it is a different story. There is not ample evidence for those who critically evaluate the book without bias to convince them that it's true. So my question here is the following:

Do you believe that atheists like myself are justified in saying that the evidence is not compelling enough to believe the bible to be true? Why or why not?

caposkia wrote:

Despite that, I'm still willing to discuss the possibility of word getting around in time... which I think statistically I have proven is possible even world wide though it wouldn't be logical that people were spread that far at that time.

No. You have not. *1* You posited that it may be possible to have circumnavigated the globe by using a formula of distance travelled per day. You ignored problems with storing food back then (not often possible, no beef jerky back then...). You ignored harder terrain slowing progress. You ignored an ocean (and have offered no comment on whether or not a land bridge still existed between Eurasia and the Americas, or Asia and Australia for that matter, which creates a HUGE problem in explaining how the marsupials ended up in Australia under creationism). You ignored different languages (although if you believe in the tower of babel story, that hadn't happened yet, even though earlier verses posit that it did at the same time....another discussion I'd love to have...). Even if you solved ALL of those problems, you ignored people's likelihood to believe the stories and pass them on properly. This story really only works if you leave realism at the door. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Even IF word was somehow able to travel around, him building a giant zoo is not evidence of an impending divine flood on its own. You would have to confirm that he was doing it for that reason, and that such a thing was a real threat. How many people in 2012 sold all of their possessions, because they were certain the rapture was coming. These people were 100% convinced. It doesn't mean they were right (and considering they're still here, it means quite the opposite). Anyway, it says nowhere in the bible that anyone set out to spread the word. Not Noah, not people who witnessed him building this thing, nor did it say that god told anyone "shape the hell up, or you're screwed". Also, I may be missing something but I don't see where it says that it took 120 years to build either. 

You're starting to ramble...  

You first assume that no one at that time looked at what Noah was building and said WTF man... then you'd have to assume Noah ignored their WTF and thus left them guessing.  I don't know how you jump suddenly to people in 2012 selling their posessions based on belief... I can only guess you're going back to the idea of my beilef in the story vs. your unbelief...  

No. You're claiming that someone doing something drastic for religious reasons makes it justified to consider that they're correct about the supernatural. Every single person I've seen in my lifetime do something drastic (like selling their possessions), has been wrong. 100% of them. Every single person to believe these things in my lifetime that I've ever seen, when making a specific claim that would be actually impressive if it came true, has been wrong. 

My question here is: Is it justified to have called those in 2012 awaiting the apparently impending rapture deluded, even BEFORE it happened? I would contend that it was, and it was confirmed when the rapture didn't occur. Now in your story it claims that the flood did. However, if the people in question believed in false gods, there may have been specific claims made there as well that didn't come true. If that was par for the course, their disbelief is justified. 

caposkia wrote:

It doesn't say anywhere that anyone spread the word... I will go back to what I said in the beginning that there's not enough evidence to say any of it for sure

Exactly. Then why do you keep asserting that there is enough evidence to say that a world-wide flood actually happened??

caposkia wrote:

... let's say there's not enough evidence to conclude that word was not spread... there's 0 reason even from the story to assume they didn't know things were not going right... There may have been a lot of disbelief at the time, we don't know... we do know there was a lot of murder and other horrible happenings that deemed humanity unbearable.  

Double negatives, yay! NOT enough evidence to conclude that the word WASN'T spread. 0 reason to assume they DIDN'T know things WEREN'T going right. When you use this many double negatives, it shows you're trying to make false equivocations, and basically just repeat what I said with an extra negative. If you want to do this, then you concede that in the context of the bible, each position is equally viable. So it's 50/50. Either god's the holy of holies and righteous or he's a prick. Flip a coin! 

Also, the murder and horrible things are what the bible says occur, yes. But the bible also says that god killed Onan for "releasing" in the wrong place. According to the bible, god let satan fuck with Job to prove his loyalty. Is that morally ok? 

Your entire argument here is "of course god is all-loving and all-good". Cite all the nice verses you want. But you have to then ignore all the wicked ones. If you're right about every detail flood-related, and all of the people outside of Noah's family knew, and god knew with 100% that humanity would have the least wickedness overall if every one of those people was killed off immediately, then I guess one would have to concede that not doing it would be worse. Of course humane deaths would be an improvement on drowning, but I guess in Christianity that's splitting hairs.

However, the story of Job is a little tougher. Job wasn't punished for something. Job was a play thing. Job was being fucked with. Job was a victim of god's ego. Job loves and worships god. Satan says "Of course, you give him so much! If it were all taken away, he would condemn you". "K Lucy(fer). Do your worst. He'll STILL love me. I could stop you from going too far because I'm god...but I won't. Keep him alive, but I will prove to you even if you make his life the most unbearable in human history, he will still love and worship me". But you say god's all-loving so you must be right!....????

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Defending disbelief. How imprecise can language get? I'm not really "defending" a position in that way. You are. You are asserting that a certain story happened. I am pointing out why your reasoning is bad. When you asserted that people were informed about the flood, and you were shown (by more people than just me) that either people were either spread too far apart, or they lacked communication skills to explain the impending catastrophe, you simply have been avoiding the time question since. You now simply backed into "of course they knew". You haven't said "because god", but you seem to just be asserting that they definitely knew for some reason. 

People have not been able to logically show how word could not have gotten around the world in such a time frame when i've shown the math on how it is logical that it could have even by 1 person starting it... also it is logical to conclude that people had not migrated that far yet and at worst they probably made it at max to Asia minor.  

let's assume people didn't know then... does it make a difference?  Is it Gods fault that their parents or the parents of their parents failed to inform them of the God that rules them?  That would be the only way they would not have known their actions would come with consequences... at least from God... they must have assumed their actions had natral consequences...

don't get all huffy puffy about me going back into a corner again... i'm just trying to appease your perspective..  I'm still discussing the idea of word spreading or that they already knew... I'm just offereing the inevitable other angle.  

No. I've addressed this above. Delete this part and respond to the relevant part above (at *1*)

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Is it necessary that people were informed by Noah/his family world-wide, or not? If not and you assert that people just knew, then why didn't you start with that? It's obvious that you thought you could find a reasonable method that this happened WITHOUT having to resort to "because god", but you couldn't. It has been fully logically ruled out, so now you're just saying that they knew. They just....they knew. If they were given the same evidence Noah was (which was enough for him to build an ark), there is no way that literally everyone else on earth would be so stupid to just say "nah, he's bluffing...just because he can talk to us from the sky doesn't mean he can send a flood to the entire earth!". Of course they knew, because god is good, because the bible says he's good, and the holy spirit tells me he's good. Of course people knew, and it was in their sin that they caused themselves to be killed, etc. etc...that is all you have left. Also, of course the flood happened because the bible says so, even though there is no physical evidence left behind for the biggest flood ever for some reason (but we have physical evidence of a shit-ton of other floods). Because the bible says so. Because god.

They knew IMO because according to scripture, few if any people didn't accept a higher power... back in that time, there were less options of following other gods though that might have been a possibility still... regardless of what god they followed, they were aware of the God of the Bible just as any other culture written about later in history was aware of the gods of their land.  There's no logical historical reason to consider during that time they had no clue.

True. Those cultures later in history did have their own gods, and were aware of others in the vicinity. You are positing a world-wide flood, which means they would have to have known of a god far outside their land. Either they didn't know, or god told them himself (where I wouldn't see them denying it if it was true and obvious). 

Also, if the people IN the land were aware, why deny him if he's more reasonable to believe in than their fake gods?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

If that's the case, stop pretending that you have any actual compelling reasons to believe these things if you're just going to backpedal into that cop-out in the end. Your mind is clearly beyond changing. I care more at this point for you to examine these things yourself than responding. You should examine it, and wonder why it seems to fall apart logically at a certain point, and you have to appeal to the divine, who isn't subject to logic. 

I don't feel like we've actually started discussing something substantial yet... how am I beyond changing?  I have said at the beginning that I don't believe in this story based on the evidence that this story provides. (which is very little if any) rather I take the Bible as a whole along with life experience, science, history, archaeology, people group ancestery.. etc into consideration... so unless we're going to touch on those subjects, it's going to be hard for me to change my perspective on a story I consider fact based on OTHER evidences.    My acceptance of the Noah story is based on deduction through other evidences throughout scripture along with the other points listed... not based on strictly what this story has to offer.  

Whenever you don't have an answer, you seem to go back to the points listed above... just saying

No idea what you're just saying. I think you're just repeating my own arguments and trying (unsuccesfully I might add) to direct them at me, even in cases where they can't apply. 

Anyway, fine. 

Life experience, science, history, archaeology, people group ancestry. Pick any one except life experience, as personal experience is not evidence to anyone but yourself (and if it seems dodgy, check your brain). My brother to this day is convinced that he saw a UFO while high once. However, he is also a reasonable person. He believes that he saw the UFO, but he also believes that it was not there. He believes that his senses played tricks on him no matter how convincing. Pick any of the above that I bolded. Your most compelling piece of evidence that points to the truth of a part of the bible that would make the rest of the book more believable as well, and convince me.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hah, guess I didn't read it? I have. In 2 languages to boot. You, on the other hand, fail to address my point completely. Why did god not prepare Adam and/or Eve for any potential deception if there was a possibility of it occurring in the garden? Eitehr by making their brains better at detecting deception, or by simply telling them "So anyways, there are these angels who raised all sorts of shit up here, and now I've banished them. Anyhow, they're great at deception. You're allowed to do absolutely EVERYTHING here except eat from that one tree. Someone might try to convince you to eat it...just....just don't. Here is what will happen if you do (explanation of death, pain, etc.).". Nnnnope. God did neither. Is someone who grew up in a broken home responsible for their actions? Yes. Is their behaviour a result of their upbringing? Yes. Why is god blame free in this situation?

based on your responses though, it's easy to assume you haven't read it...  

To the Adam and Eve preparation question:  God said 'don't eat this fruit or you will die'... what more do you need?  There's a lot of speculation into the eating of the fruit and that whole story, but that's for another thread.  Also are you suggesting you've never been decieved?  

Yes I've been deceived. Have you ever disobeyed an authority? "Don't do this because I say so" often is not sufficient for most people. Humans have the ability to undermine authority, and they have the ability to be deceived too. What does that prove? A command is not enough. 

caposkia wrote:

...and uh... God did tell them they would die... and as frank as He said it, it implies to me that they understood what that meant.  You claim God did neither... and you laugh when I say you haven't read it... 

Why is God blame free in this situation:  Because God told them explicitly not to eat it or they would die... simple and strait.  

A parent tells their child; "don't touch the stove or you'll get burned... it's hot"  The child touches the stove, who's fault is that?  

some could say the parents because they should have watched their child closer, some would say the child because they were given explicit directions... 

Let's put that scenario into perspective... We are making a federal case out of God allowing Adam and Eve be decieved... If a child is told not to touch a stove and then burns themselves on that stove... should Child Protective Services be called on those parents or can it be toked up to the childs poor judgement resulting in some painful consequences?  

CPS shouldn't be called, no. However, there are overprotective parents who might not leave a hot stove unsupervised, and remove the knobs when they're not around (if they feel the child can touch them). However, are parents considered irresponsible if they leave potentially harmful medicine around with the childproof caps off? CPS can be called then, yes, if the child ends up in hospital. The garden of eden story is more akin to leaving a child with the key to nuclear weapons, and not ensuring that the house is secure, and allowing your opponent in war's spies to easily slip in and convince the child to fire the things! If the story in the garden happened, it would have been to that point the biggest mistake in history. Nobody is without blame there, including god. 

You are only using analogies that serve to protect your god from criticism, and ignoring where they fall short. 

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:No solid

Jabberwocky wrote:

No solid links?? Did you read the article I posted regarding human chromosome #2? If not, go back a page and read it please. I don't know about you, but to me (and probably everyone else who isn't in denial) that is a solid smoking gun. We can pinpoint the chromosomal fusion that resulted in us having one less chromosome pairings than the other great apes. Our 2nd chromosome has an extra large telomere (typically found on the ends of chromosomes) in the centre of it, and 2 centromeres instead of one (typically found in the middle) at the halfway points between the telomeres. 

You state in another post that fossil gaps are a problem. However, fossil gaps are simply evidence of one fact: fossilization doesn't happen all too often, so we only get a small percentage of the puzzle, but we find that our predictions are quite accurate whenever we find more pieces. We have a large number of primate skulls, and a gradual change of the skull to one that contains a bigger brain is something we can see. Similarly, we can see primate pelvises of varying proportions showing the gradual change that allowed for bipedalism (and far more painful birthing for the poor women who have to go through it). Of course, once again, the DNA evidence is enough. When the DNA was sequenced to find out how old our most recent common ancestors were, it fit within the range of estimates provided by fossil evidence. Of course, the range was quite a wide gap because for a long time people were unsure as to whether humans evolved concurrently in multiple places or only once in Africa. DNA evidence helped us confirm that the latter theory is correct, although interbreeding with neanderthals did occur, and is evidenced by DNA as well. That is consistent with where we find neanderthal fossils, and the fact that those of more recent African origin do not contain neanderthal DNA. 

So once again, do not say that there is a problem in the foundation concept of biology if you have no clue what you're talking about. You say

caposkia wrote:
Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution

I have just provided you with two separate types of evidence. Fossil evidence, and DNA evidence (which came later). The DNA evidence corroborated what we estimated using the fossil evidence. Can you tell me where this "no evidence" is? Can you come up with an actual problem in the theory? Failing to do so, what you should say is not "Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution". What you should say is "I don't understand the theory of evolution well enough for it to make any sense to me." So put up, or shut up. Nobody who does science in the field of biology doubts this. Any young earth creationists in the fields of biology (which sadly is possible) are not doing science at least when it comes to evaluating the theory of evolution. They are not leaving their biases at the door. That is what scientists should do; leave bias at the door, and follow the evidence. The evidence I have presented if I'm right, points to the theory of evolution being true. If you're right, it points to god being one hell of a prankster.

Tell you where "no evidence" is???? In other words, prove a negative???? riiight...

The problem in the theory is the gaps are consistent across all Kinds, not just between primates and humans.  It is a consistent problem which suggests that maybe evolution did not progress like that.  Rather all Kinds produced various products of the same Kind.  Using DNA considering the consistencies and likeness of all DNA structures, a scientist can try to link watermelon to animal ancestry.  Why has that not been done?  It's not very logical... but because primates and humans appear more alike, they can try to link the 2 despite the gaps.  

I have read your very short link quickly explaining the alleged understanding of the linked chromosomes.  Here is a much more exhaustive link I read that explains why that theory doesn't prove the evolutionary link between primates and humans:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chromosome-fusion

please find some time to read through that and share your thoughts.  


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

That's fair. To use your analogy, evolution isn't like looking at 2 locations, finding no way across, and making it up. Evolution is more like finding a bike path in a valley, and finding it partially washed away (topical analogy to this thread too!). Do you assume from seeing the bike path that nobody ever could have used it to get from one end of the valley to the other? No. Do you assume that it always just used to lead to the river so that cyclists can ride into that? No you don't. You assume that the path changed due to something else. If you see a road next to a river that you know flooded recently that is not even useable anymore with only some tiny pieces of asphalt there, do you say "well, nobody could have EVER used that road?" or "Man, those construction workers were lazy, or had too little asphalt to do this job" or "Who the hell designed THIS road like this?" No. You. Don't! We make assumptions based on what we do know of how people build roads, and then try to figure out why it's different. Seeing a river nearby, and other nearby landscape showing evidence of higher water levels, we can conclude that the river flooded the road, and ruined it. Your analogy ignores important points.

Not to mention that the reason I used the analogy in the first place is to outline that for me to get from point A to point B, I have to physically travel the distance in between rather than teleport. The point is that evolution happens quite gradually. We know by comparing our DNA to other primates and then comparing say your DNA to your parents, we can make quite accurate predictions on how many generations it would take for a common ancestor of ours to split to ourselves, chimps, and bonobos. But I guess there's still no evidence.

no, there really isn't... see the link I posted above... I can see why scientists use the information we have to try and make that link, but it is a very unique case if what they claim is true as outlined in the link.   

jabberwocky wrote:

The DNA evidence alone is enough to show us that the theory is bulletproof, unless a finding is uncovered that actually proves it false (as said by J.B.S. Haldane, "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" is done. No such finding has EVER been found).

We can measure the rate of DNA change between yourself and your parents, and everyone else, and from that figure out the rate of change that is possible, and also the rate of change that is the most common. There is no animal that has ever been found with a DNA sequence that has puzzled biologists. All of it shows that it would have come from a common ancestor. Because of that, we could compare the DNA of any two creatures (or plants, or bacteria even) on Earth, and provide an estimate as to how many generations ago the common ancestor existed. Obviously that's with a bigger margin of error the more different the organisms are to each other.

If you have trouble believing that we descended from other primates with no help from a supernatural being:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

^^.....see wiki...and don't ever say that there are gaping holes in the unifying theory of all biology before you know anything CLOSE to enough about it to utter such a statement. Kenneth Miller (a Catholic believe it or not) said about the above something along the lines of "I believe in a creator, but not a deceptive one". He accepts (with no issue...and in fact insists) that this simply happened, and did NOT require any outside help. 

I love how because I don't agree with you, your automatic assumption is I don't understand it rather than rationalizing it.  That is a sign of someone who is using ad hoc statements to force their truth on others.   That's a very "religious" approach... just sayin'

Jabberwocky wrote:

No you don't. You can believe that us and plants had a common ancestor (which to my research seems to indeed be the case). Just because plants are a simpler form of life speaking in coloquial terms (where no brain is simpler by default) doesn't mean that we had to come from them. Did you even check what biologists believe before you posted that? I have a feeling you didn't. If I'm not quite certain about something I say, I typically do. 

Of course there are fossil gaps. Fossilization is a rare occurence, so we should expect gaps. What do you mean by "gaps are consistent and not sporatic?" Are you suggesting that we have very uniform gaps between species we find, therefore it suggests that there are no transitions? Because I would strongly disagree with that. I have not seen anything to suggest that the gaps are uniform. In fact, those who study biology honestly will tell you of each fossil what is more human-like, what is more chimp-like, what is more gorilla-like even. It shows that there is a transition because it does bear resemblance to both. If there IS something that shows a uniform disconnect between every fossil that has been classified, please provide proof. 

Creationists agree on most fossils on whether they're human or ape, because they show more attributes of one than the other. The ones that bear resemblance to both (it seems that Australopithecines are where it really starts to get muddled), real biologists will, once again, point to which features resemble what more. Creationists, on the other hand, will simply be split on whether the fossil is human or ape. While creationist dogma will always say that evolution isn't true, they don't have a consistent opinion on which australopithecines were what. This is because (in my opinion) creationists have that dogma, and make it up as they go along. When they see evidence of something showing both human and other ape-like attributes, they draw a line in the sand (with each creationist drawing a different line BTW) and say "this is a human fossil" or "this is an ape fossil". That is a ridiculous stance that is impossible to defend without lying (to oneself, AND others). 

So, as I've said, care to provide any actual problems in evolution? Once again, I repeat what Haldane said. Find me "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" or any other solid fossil that's in the wrong place that suggest that we didn't evolve as biologists claim. Find me ONE! I have provided you DNA evidence that is strong evidence to support relatively recent common ancestry between humans and all other living apes. Provide me one piece of evidence to show that I'm wrong. 

 

let's continue this with your comments on the link I provided.  That will bring more progression to this than anything I can say right now.


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

How? There is literally no way to verify this if the written word didn't exist. It's possible that people who conned their way to riches a generation ago could have conned a fake family history as well. You keep on asserting this, and accusing me of not knowing history. If you're right, then you're right, but by re-asserting it you are not convincing me. Show me a study that has been done that suggests that what you're saying is true. 

except through the written word that had started...  Let's use the Bible for an example... let's just forget for a moment the claims of the Bible and strictly look at the culture and the authors who wrote it.  Within most of scripture, there is a great emphasis on the "word" of others and at what degree that is held even during that time.  What more then would spoken word be regarded long before written word was discovered or understood?  Even then in Biblical times, the majority of all populations were illiterate thus it was the spoken word of others that the majority relied on.    It is why the pharasees were able to pull the wool over the Jews eyes for so long before Jesus came.  No one questioned them because few could read the scripts.  

Consider that Jesus was put on a cross because of what He said, not what He did.  (regardless of what you believe, a human named Jesus is historical and is understood to have been hung on a cross):  SEE here

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Sorry, but it's a law that I happen to agree with, and I would contend that you do as well. Because a murder law may have not existed back then, it does not mean that we can examine events of the time (real or mythical) and decide whether or not it would be a violation of the laws we have now come up with. In that light, I contend still that if it happened in any sense similar to what the bible says, it is murder. The book contends that everyone minus 8 people was an immoral thug. I don't think that the human species could have even reached a reasonable population number were that the case. Therefore, in the story, it would mean that god deemed them immoral for crimes that aren't real (but are in the bible) like disobedience to god, blasphemy, idolatry, etc., while at the same time not showing enough evidence for his existence. Even though I think that the old testament god is a thug, if I found him to be real and unoverthrowable, I would have no choice but to worship him. These people clearly were not convinced that he was real even though he was easily able to convince Noah. Then he killed everyone for their disbelief. Today, that would count as murder whichever way you cut it....or drown it. 

it was never disbelief that they died for.  immorality is not likened to belief or disbelief in the Bible.  The scripture in Genesis 6:13 specifically states:  ..."the Earth is filled with violence because of them..."  I don't see anywhere that it said because of their disbelief...  You seem to want to think they didn't know He existed but there's nothing in the story to suggest so.  

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

I would argue the same about you. I asked you "which" details. As far as the details you've ignored:

1. I brought up that the bible is not concise at all as to what people's immoral nature was to warrant their death by drowing.

no, it wasn't... but it did specify violence and nothing but evil filled their thoughts...  If God is real, it's not our place with our modern man made laws to determine the justice in those actions then... as you said, the Bible is not concise as to what peoples immoral nature was... therefore no one is justified to judge God in this.  Something tells me that God was there and He created it all, so due to His actions to create, He is just to destroy that which He created.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

2. I brought up that the bible does not posit that anyone was informed or warned of their immorality, and the impending punishment

except that God said: Gen 6:3 "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever because he is also flesh, nevertheless, his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."  

This suggests 2 things... that Gods "spririt" was with the people on Earth at the time (they knew God) and that a statement was made 120 years prior that God was not going to keep putting up with them.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

3. I brought up that 8 people traversing the entirety of human populations to inform them of such was unfeasible, (especially since they had to simultaneously build a giant boat and corral 2 of each animal onto it of the clean ones, 7 of the clean, I forgot to add that part)

I have already addressed how easy it would be for even 1 person to "spread the word" in the time allotted.... if that was even necessary.  

jabberwocky wrote:

4. I brought up that if word were to travel from person to person, they wouldn't believe it anyway, hence it would be safe to assume that people would have been killed in the flood without knowing why. 

...If I told you that you should not draw stick figures in public because there's a sect of people that get offended by it and kill people for it, you may not believe me and go do it anyway... if you actually got killed for doing that, would you honestly still not know why?  Whether you believe it or not at the time you still have the information with you and have no excuse when the time comes to pay the price for it.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

How did the people who weren't Noah & his family know about god? How did they know that they were immoral? And why did they continue to act the way they did if they knew that god was all powerful and resistance was futile?

the same reason why anyone does something they know is wrong anyway.   We've all done it.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Perhaps. However, for every verse that tells you that god is fair, righteous, and all-loving, there is another verse where he asks someone to slaughter his son (only to say "psyche!&quotEye-wink or to stone to death wives who aren't virgins on their wedding nights, or to stone disobedient children, or to kill homosexuals, or personally kills people who splooge in the wrong place, or tell Jephthah to kill his daughter (and let him do it, unlike with Isaac)....I can go on. These things are not consistent with someone who is fair, righteous (although self-righteous maybe) and all-loving. It's easy to defend the "context of scripture" when you ignore the parts that are uncomfortable. If the god of the bible is real, he's a prick (at best!). 

it's easy to make God sound unfair when you ignore the context of each issue you brought up.  They're all in scripture for a reason...  the biggest mistake people make is to think that it was the specific action of the person and not the disobedience that resulted in the negative consequence.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

You offered two options above which would be the 2 logical possibilities were the book true. Then you offer this third option here (poorly written I must add), which is a little like the first option, but far more accusatory. It implies that we're not so dumb, but we simply willingly deny him somehow based on our "own personal logic" even though logic isn't a matter of opinion. Logic just is. But your implication is clear. You are implying that we are deliberately denying him like those people that he drowned in the flood. My contention is that if he's real, he has not provided evidence. I require no mental gymnastics to justify this position. 

you suggested above that God gave more evidence to His followers than to the non-believers.  Doesn't everyone have access to a Bible if they want to have one?  Can't you observe the eye-witness testimonies of those who claim to have God working in their lives if you want to?  it all comes down to choice.. if you don't want to see the evidences, then you won't see them.  e.g. if you don't want to hang around Believers, you won't see how God is working in their lives.  if you don't want to read scripture, you won't see the history of God's work.  

What? That was very poorly written but I'll try to answer you. If the opposite is the case, that the bible is all myth, then it would follow that believers do accept false information and ignore facts, yes. In this thread, you contend that the flood was real. When it was brought up to you that people would have to be informed to be able to know that they were immoral (and at risk of this flood), you got caught in a situation where either our language was too primitive to explain, or people were spread too far apart to explain it to everyone. You are ignoring these facts, and simply asserting that the flood must have happened anyway. Also, above, you ignore facts about biology. You are accepting false information (the bible), and ignoring "true fact" (foundational concepts that tie all of biology together). 

The series of posts by me that this was answering proves the point that the ages old debate of who is ignoring "true fact" is never a progressive conversation.  Case closed.  

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't feel very cornered... but if that's how you feel... let's really jam me into that corner... what is it that truly put me in that corner so I have to face it head on and not shy away from it???  

Did Noah's family spread the word so long ago that language wasn't develped enough to explain it (impossible)? or

Did Noah's family spread the word once language was sufficient to explain it (at which point people would have been spread too far apart)?

These are the possibilites we have come up based on things you said. "Of course people were warned" (to paraphrase you) you said. The two things just listed above are absolute logical problems with the assertion that people were warned. Let's continue.

I honestly believe that they already knew and didn't need to be warned, reference to my Genesis quote about Gods spirit not dwelling with the people forever.  To appease your worldview that such an event would have to be spoken of and they would need to be notified, I did the math as to how logical it would be for word to spread in the time allotted... if you remember, no matter how you look at it, even with 1 person doing all the work.  As spread as people were, it was very logical that all could have known by word of mouth by the time the flood came.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I know today of the bible. I know it's a book. I know that a large chunk of the world population accept it as more than "just a book", despite calling the Quran, the Book of Mormon, older mythological texts "just books". Of course accepting or believing in it is a different story. There is not ample evidence for those who critically evaluate the book without bias to convince them that it's true. So my question here is the following:

Do you believe that atheists like myself are justified in saying that the evidence is not compelling enough to believe the bible to be true? Why or why not?

Nice question.  I like that one.  

Here's my perspective on that; I believe you are justified in the evidences you have accepted to believe what you believe... As far as all evidences taken into consideration, I believe it is not justified to believe the the Bible is not true. 

If I could justify your perspective; that the evidence is not compelling enough to believe the Bible to be true, then I myself would have to believe the Bible to not be true.  

jabberwocky wrote:

No. You have not. *1* You posited that it may be possible to have circumnavigated the globe by using a formula of distance travelled per day. You ignored problems with storing food back then (not often possible, no beef jerky back then...). You ignored harder terrain slowing progress. You ignored an ocean (and have offered no comment on whether or not a land bridge still existed between Eurasia and the Americas, or Asia and Australia for that matter, which creates a HUGE problem in explaining how the marsupials ended up in Australia under creationism). You ignored different languages (although if you believe in the tower of babel story, that hadn't happened yet, even though earlier verses posit that it did at the same time....another discussion I'd love to have...). Even if you solved ALL of those problems, you ignored people's likelihood to believe the stories and pass them on properly. This story really only works if you leave realism at the door. 

I ignore the problem with storing food... you ignore the fact that colonies typically did not spread more than a day's journey from each other

I ignore harder terrain.  you ignore that the math considers circumnavigating the globe, which is not logical at the time because people would not have been spread that far.

I ignore an ocean, you ignore that it was less than 50,000 years ago before oceans were crossed and the final consensus of this story was more like 2 million years ago... give or take a million.

I ignore different languages, but we haven't a clue about languages at the time... they may not have existed yet.  Babel happened after the flood according to Genesis.  What verses do you say posit that Babel did happen before?  (not to side track... just curious)

I ignored people's likelihood to believe the stories and pass them on properly... you ignore that belief has nothing to do with gosip... again Noah is building the worlds largest floating zoo... people are going to talk whether they believe in his purpose or not.  

Marsupials in Australia?  What happened to Pangea???   How far from the continent had Austrailia drifted at the time?  

Do you see the problem with your logic here?

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. You're claiming that someone doing something drastic for religious reasons makes it justified to consider that they're correct about the supernatural. Every single person I've seen in my lifetime do something drastic (like selling their possessions), has been wrong. 100% of them. Every single person to believe these things in my lifetime that I've ever seen, when making a specific claim that would be actually impressive if it came true, has been wrong. 

My question here is: Is it justified to have called those in 2012 awaiting the apparently impending rapture deluded, even BEFORE it happened? I would contend that it was, and it was confirmed when the rapture didn't occur. Now in your story it claims that the flood did. However, if the people in question believed in false gods, there may have been specific claims made there as well that didn't come true. If that was par for the course, their disbelief is justified. 

I do believe it was justified to have called those in 2012 deluded... A few reasons just from scripture alone let alone logic in life.  Matthew 24:36 AND Mark 13:32; "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, not the Son, but the Father alone." 

There are many places in scripture that talk about us preparing ourselves for the coming of our Lord, but I don't remember reading anywhere that part of the preparation should be selling all my posessions when I think the time has come.  Scriptural "preparation" has to do with repentance and making sure we're walking with God and not with Satan.

also the third issue from scripture alone:  a close study of the book of Revelation can lead one to conclude that this "rapture" time could actually span several years and thus we should more likely stock up for the coming time rather than sell everything if we think we're to ride out the storm per se'.  

So should we lump all claims of Gods work into those such stories where people were blatently diluded and didn't even read the very book they claim gave them the information they are following?  of course not, that's not logical.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Exactly. Then why do you keep asserting that there is enough evidence to say that a world-wide flood actually happened??

the same reason why you keep asserting that it didn't.  We both believe we have evidences to support our perspective... me, I believe there are evidences of God and many stories of scripture... based on those evidences I logically conclude that this story must also be true.  You believe there are world evidences that suggest this story did not happen.  Both conclusions are logical based on this story alone.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Double negatives, yay! NOT enough evidence to conclude that the word WASN'T spread. 0 reason to assume they DIDN'T know things WEREN'T going right. When you use this many double negatives, it shows you're trying to make false equivocations, and basically just repeat what I said with an extra negative. If you want to do this, then you concede that in the context of the bible, each position is equally viable. So it's 50/50. Either god's the holy of holies and righteous or he's a prick. Flip a coin! 

I should have said there's no reason to believe it didn't happen that way.  Though in my defense, you've been trying to prove a negative this whole time... that the flood didn't happen.

jabberwocky wrote:

 

killed Onan for "releasing" in the wrong place. According to the bible, god let satan fuck with Job to prove his loyalty. Is that morally ok? 

*disclaimer*

I know your whole statement is not above... I accidentally erased a part of it... due to the fact that the clipboard doesn't seem to be working rihgt, I didn't want to retype it... i did read it all though.

Considering that not only had Job gotten everything back 10 fold (er so) but also the countless people through the ages that the story of Job has helped through dark times, it was morally ok because Job would have saved more people because of his trials. 

Again that's one example of context and effect.    Another is killing Onan for "releasing" in the wrong place... was it really for his releasing or for his turning his back on God's command given directly to him?  

jabberwocky wrote:

Your entire argument here is "of course god is all-loving and all-good". Cite all the nice verses you want. But you have to then ignore all the wicked ones. If you're right about every detail flood-related, and all of the people outside of Noah's family knew, and god knew with 100% that humanity would have the least wickedness overall if every one of those people was killed off immediately, then I guess one would have to concede that not doing it would be worse. Of course humane deaths would be an improvement on drowning, but I guess in Christianity that's splitting hairs.

I love that argument from non-believers... we have to ignore the bad things to believe that God is good.... Have you ever thought of why the bad things are there?  Did God decide to put them there, or did people bring them there?  

...and a more humane death... what would you consider more humane?  What should God have done instead to wipe out all life?  Don't beat around the bush with God should have done it.. let's go with what you were saying above.  

jabberwocky wrote:

However, the story of Job is a little tougher. Job wasn't punished for something. Job was a play thing. Job was being fucked with. Job was a victim of god's ego. Job loves and worships god. Satan says "Of course, you give him so much! If it were all taken away, he would condemn you". "K Lucy(fer). Do your worst. He'll STILL love me. I could stop you from going too far because I'm god...but I won't. Keep him alive, but I will prove to you even if you make his life the most unbearable in human history, he will still love and worship me". But you say god's all-loving so you must be right!....????

the book of Job, one must look at the bigger picture... what came of that story and how has it affected people through the ages?  How many lives do you think were saved because of what Job went through?  I know of a few.  Was it wrong of God to put a faithful believer through torture to save possibly hundreds or thousands of lives?  Was it wrong to prove the level of faithfulness of God's followers and show all future generations the level of faith God seeks?  

I wouldn't expect non-beilevers to understand the last part.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Defending disbelief. How imprecise can language get? I'm not really "defending" a position in that way. You are. You are asserting that a certain story happened. I am pointing out why your reasoning is bad. When you asserted that people were informed about the flood, and you were shown (by more people than just me) that either people were either spread too far apart, or they lacked communication skills to explain the impending catastrophe, you simply have been avoiding the time question since. You now simply backed into "of course they knew". You haven't said "because god", but you seem to just be asserting that they definitely knew for some reason. 

 

No. I've addressed this above. Delete this part and respond to the relevant part above (at *1*)

as I had said though, I've also addressed your assertion claim above, many many times.  I don't follow to where you want me to respond.  Is it the time question?  That has come and gone... go back to one of the last responses to Beyond Saving.  We readdressed it.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

True. Those cultures later in history did have their own gods, and were aware of others in the vicinity. You are positing a world-wide flood, which means they would have to have known of a god far outside their land. Either they didn't know, or god told them himself (where I wouldn't see them denying it if it was true and obvious). 

Also, if the people IN the land were aware, why deny him if he's more reasonable to believe in than their fake gods?

in thier minds He may not have been.  Honestly, I don't know.  In my mind, it doesn't make sense, but I wasn't there.  Consider that today though I see many people denying the true and obvious.  Just as you see me as denying the true and obvious.  is it so hard to believe that people could deny the obvious?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

No idea what you're just saying. I think you're just repeating my own arguments and trying (unsuccesfully I might add) to direct them at me, even in cases where they can't apply. 

Anyway, fine. 

uh... no.... I have been using that since my start on this site 6+ years ago.. you can reserach my forum history.  Has nothing to do with what you were saying.. though i find it ironic that you saw it as me repeating your own arguments, what could that suggest besides me trying to redirect your own arguments back to you?

jabberwocky wrote:

Life experience, science, history, archaeology, people group ancestry. Pick any one except life experience, as personal experience is not evidence to anyone but yourself (and if it seems dodgy, check your brain). My brother to this day is convinced that he saw a UFO while high once. However, he is also a reasonable person. He believes that he saw the UFO, but he also believes that it was not there. He believes that his senses played tricks on him no matter how convincing. Pick any of the above that I bolded. Your most compelling piece of evidence that points to the truth of a part of the bible that would make the rest of the book more believable as well, and convince me.

look at this as a cop out or not, but any one of those is a much longer conversation that should be on another thread.  It would detract from the OP.  To pick one though if you want to see details on History, I am currently in a thread with PJTS on that topic.  OT stories myth, legend or real.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes I've been deceived. Have you ever disobeyed an authority? "Don't do this because I say so" often is not sufficient for most people. Humans have the ability to undermine authority, and they have the ability to be deceived too. What does that prove? A command is not enough. 

does having the ability to do something make that something inevitable?  A command is not enough you're right, so there was a command with a consequence.  It's literally how we enforce all of our laws.. it is a command with a conseqence for breaking it.  Most people are able to follow them without issue... at least the bigger ones.  Honestly, think about it... if you were told on any level; "if you do this you will die" are you going to do it?  I wouldn't.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

CPS shouldn't be called, no. However, there are overprotective parents who might not leave a hot stove unsupervised, and remove the knobs when they're not around (if they feel the child can touch them). However, are parents considered irresponsible if they leave potentially harmful medicine around with the childproof caps off? CPS can be called then, yes, if the child ends up in hospital. The garden of eden story is more akin to leaving a child with the key to nuclear weapons, and not ensuring that the house is secure, and allowing your opponent in war's spies to easily slip in and convince the child to fire the things! If the story in the garden happened, it would have been to that point the biggest mistake in history. Nobody is without blame there, including god. 

You are only using analogies that serve to protect your god from criticism, and ignoring where they fall short. 

Whenever you don't have a good answer to the analogies you always resort to the "ignoring" excues.  i think I have proven time and again that not only do I NOT ignore anything presented, but if someone claims I ignore them i address them... AGAIN!  Do I really have to be redudant here?

I use analogies to try to help you understand my perspective.  not to protect God... God does not need my protection.. rather I need His.  

I see your analogy and from that I get your perspective of the garden story... however, your analogy assumes that the fruit was to never be touched ever in the existence of humanity.  I don't know for sure why God had put it in the garden, but it's logical that if it was within reach of Adam and Eve that God eventually had a plan that involved them eating of the fruit maybe when they were ready.  I would liken it more to a child getting access to an alcoholic bevereage.  Drinking it could definitely kill them, but as an adult, they would be more aware of its effects and the dangers and be more capable of using it responsibly.  


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:no, how about

caposkia wrote:

no, how about that there isn't enough evidence to conclude anything about this story on... in other words, you and I both don't have a "shred of evidence" to support our side on this story.

What thread have you been reading? I've referenced at least half a dozen specific studies from scientific journals on a variety of subjects, tons of archaelogical finds that have provided physical evidence, geological evidence that such a major flood didn't happen and I've only scratched the surface of the sheer amount of evidence available. None of which points towards a worldwide flood. The only evidence you have presented throughout the entire thread was an article for a creationist who you said you didn't believe and a news paper story about a drunk moose which was easily debunked. Yet despite this, you continue to claim that we "don't know" things that we do know. 

 

caposkia wrote:

You pointed out Virtually nothing could have happened in this story 2 million years ago and I discussed with you how they could have as to which you came back with... I'll quote you here "all sorts of fantastic claims"  It really comes down to how subjective you want to be to defend your belief... e.g... Noah couldn't have gotten drunk on wine therefore God doesn't exist despite the fact that authors would use current knowledge and not necessarily understand the historocity of the story they're telling thus the fact that Noah got drunk stands, on wine can be up for debate.

And if the story is not an accurate portrayal of regular events (like a human getting drunk), why would you believe the fantastic claims the story makes (like a worldwide flood)? I have stated several times that I wouldn't doubt the story is an exaggeration from a terrible flood that destroyed a village. We know those kinds of floods happen, we know that entire villages have been destroyed by such floods and it isn't the slightest bit surprising that those stories would be passed down orally and change over time. The vast majority of myth is based on real human experiences and flood myths are very common among any society based near water.

 

caposkia wrote:

Love the Neanderthal DNA excuse as to which we both can come up with circular reasoning to defend our side on it, either way, not supportive of your perspecive that this story could not have happened at all in history.  Only that humans somewhere down the line share that DNA... not that we don't share DNA with other animal AND plant species...  The fact that we're even bringing up DNA should ring some church bells for you considering their complexity.

Because it is complex to you doesn't mean that the science is inaccurate. All you have done the entire DNA discussion is reveal that you are ignorant of genetics and how it works. Lineage and relationships are not determined by simply comparing DNA side by side and looking at what percentage is similar. While such studies are very informative and we have learned a lot from them, it is not useful in this case. Ancestry is determined by looking at specific sequences of DNA that have known mutation rates and are passed down in a predictable manner from parent to child.

 

caposkia wrote:

You may not accept this reasoning above, but that's the beauty of having a choice..

I completely accept your choice to be ignorant, but I am going to point out when you are if you choose to put your ignorance into writing on the Internet.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am willing to consider everything logically. Where have I not? Every rationalization you have presented, I considered it and then provided you with information as to why your supposition is logically impossible. You would be well off reading your last sentence as virtually every supposition you have made relies on ignorance to believe. Which is why you have needed to continually evolve your assertions to fit around the evidence you have been presented to move to another area where you are ignorant. One was to minimize having to change your assumptions is to look at the evidence and then draw your hypotheses from that. However, it is clear that you have no evidence and just make up your hypotheses running from one area of ignorance to another. And no doubt I have missed a lot of evidence because archaeology and genetics are merely passive interests of mine. 

how about the sheer fact that I changed my dating assumption based on facts that you presented and you have used that since as an excuse to claim I'm evolving my assertions.  That's not very logical or rational.  Also to assume it's ignorance to believe is not logical be it that some very intelligent minded people believe.  You get very sidetracked on the basic understanding of belief and somehow it seems you're presesnting the Noah story as the basis of all Christian belief, which is also not at all logical.

Exactly, you changed your dating assumption when confronted with evidence- but instead of looking at 2 million years ago and asking "What evidence do we have available and what conclusions can we draw from it?" You assumed that your initial assumption of the flood story was true and proceeded to try to make a square peg fit into a round hole.

Nor am I presenting the Noah story as the basis of Christian belief. I am not addressing the existence of a god at all. From beginning to end in this thread, I have been addressing the Noah story and only going further when it was relevent in relation to the Noah story. And a lot of intelligent people are ignorant about all sorts of things. Ignorance is not stupidity, it is simply not knowing. The reason this discussion has focused on archaeology, history and genetics is because those are areas where I have a little knowledge and studied them as an amateur. While I haven't argued the impossibility of the story from the angle of meteorology, not because an argument can't be made, because meteorlogicallly that much rain is impossible. However, I am quite ignorant of meteorology so I am not capable of providing evidence to support that argument without putting in a lot of time studying something I am not that interested in.

 

caposkia wrote:

If you were able to focus strictly on the evidences of the Noah story, we would have been done a long time ago because reading carefully we both have agreed there really is no evidence in hand to support or discredit this story.  

What the fuck. I'm stopping here. Reread the damn thread. We obviously don't "agree" there is no evidence to discredit the story. I (and others) have provided several pieces of evidence that discredit the story. Every single post I have made has presented some evidence that I believe discredits the story. So how in the hell did we come to this "agreement"? It is bad enough when you just make stuff up regarding how genetics work or what we know/don't know regarding archaeology, but you can't seriously believe that we agree there isn't evidence.

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
Beyond Saving wrote: What

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

What thread have you been reading? I've referenced at least half a dozen specific studies from scientific journals on a variety of subjects, tons of archaelogical finds that have provided physical evidence, geological evidence that such a major flood didn't happen and I've only scratched the surface of the sheer amount of evidence available. None of which points towards a worldwide flood. The only evidence you have presented throughout the entire thread was an article for a creationist who you said you didn't believe and a news paper story about a drunk moose which was easily debunked. Yet despite this, you continue to claim that we "don't know" things that we do know. 

wait.  You have evidence that something in history didn't happen!!!   Wow, you can prove a negative!  awesome.  So many atheists try to tell me that's not rational and not scientifically sound when I challenge them to prove to me that God does not exist.  I'm impressed... you're smarter than most Atheists it seems.

You have presented me with archaeology, geological evidences etc... none of which proves anything without a concrete date as to which you have not provided as to when this story is said to have taken place... Admit it, true or false, if you claim to have evidence that it didn't happen, you at least need to know the time frame in question... you don't.  no one does.  

you believe you have proven it couldn't have happened any time.  I have shown you evidence from a YEC that such floods can happen... Regardless of what that YEC beleived about the evidence he presented, it did prove such floods are possible.  I have also debunked the DNA claim, the no worldly flood claim, among others.  You seem to have forgotten to read the progression of the flood conversation and how "world wide" it could have been.  

Your greatest defense is a drunk moose story that I pulled off of google among many when doing a search.  Honestly, is that how you want to defend yourself?  You might want to catch up a bit on the conversations that have happened since.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

And if the story is not an accurate portrayal of regular events (like a human getting drunk), why would you believe the fantastic claims the story makes (like a worldwide flood)? I have stated several times that I wouldn't doubt the story is an exaggeration from a terrible flood that destroyed a village. We know those kinds of floods happen, we know that entire villages have been destroyed by such floods and it isn't the slightest bit surprising that those stories would be passed down orally and change over time. The vast majority of myth is based on real human experiences and flood myths are very common among any society based near water.

We've also discussed how incredible it is to believe that humans had no way of getting drunk way back when.  yet you still hold onto that belief as if that was your only defense for a poorly based religion.  

I get that you're trying to make me look incompetent here, but c'mon, you've got to do better than that.  People read these threads and are aware of things already discussed.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because it is complex to you doesn't mean that the science is inaccurate. All you have done the entire DNA discussion is reveal that you are ignorant of genetics and how it works. Lineage and relationships are not determined by simply comparing DNA side by side and looking at what percentage is similar. While such studies are very informative and we have learned a lot from them, it is not useful in this case. Ancestry is determined by looking at specific sequences of DNA that have known mutation rates and are passed down in a predictable manner from parent to child.

not to me... to the scientific world.  Ask any scientist that studies DNA and they will tell you it's complex.  

Similar percentages don't necessarily make a link.  Though it doesn't directly apply to the Neanderthal DNA discussion, it might be beneficial if you checked out the link I put in a response to Jabberwocky a post or 2 above.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I completely accept your choice to be ignorant, but I am going to point out when you are if you choose to put your ignorance into writing on the Internet.

Same here.  Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder.  The difference here is i don't look at you as ignorant, just misguided.  You have come to a logical conclusion just as many have based on what you know and what you were told.  

You become ignorant when you stop looking at the evidences and focus more on 'pointing out ignorance'.  That is basically code for; I'm right, you're wrong and there's nothing you can do or say that's going to change that.    

Do you think you're the first one who made that claim?  Trust me, it's a slippery slope.  Better stick with the facts and not a personal endevor to prove yourself right.  Egos get in the way of rational thought.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Exactly, you changed your dating assumption when confronted with evidence- but instead of looking at 2 million years ago and asking "What evidence do we have available and what conclusions can we draw from it?" You assumed that your initial assumption of the flood story was true and proceeded to try to make a square peg fit into a round hole.

well, not really... many evidences have been presented from both sides.  I think much of what's available has been presented.  Conclusion?  This story standing on its own has a lack of evidence to even discuss to this extent... No one can accept that though here for some reason.  There's no problem to initally claim this story has no evidence and therefore it didn't happen, but when I come back and claim there's no evidence to suggest either its place in history or it being work of complete fiction, suddenly there's evidence.  Why?   

Beyond Saving wrote:

Nor am I presenting the Noah story as the basis of Christian belief. I am not addressing the existence of a god at all. From beginning to end in this thread, I have been addressing the Noah story and only going further when it was relevent in relation to the Noah story. And a lot of intelligent people are ignorant about all sorts of things. Ignorance is not stupidity, it is simply not knowing. The reason this discussion has focused on archaeology, history and genetics is because those are areas where I have a little knowledge and studied them as an amateur. While I haven't argued the impossibility of the story from the angle of meteorology, not because an argument can't be made, because meteorlogicallly that much rain is impossible. However, I am quite ignorant of meteorology so I am not capable of providing evidence to support that argument without putting in a lot of time studying something I am not that interested in.

meanwhile i do have the experience in meteorology and therefore the evidences I have presented confirm the possibility.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

What the fuck. I'm stopping here. Reread the damn thread. We obviously don't "agree" there is no evidence to discredit the story. I (and others) have provided several pieces of evidence that discredit the story. Every single post I have made has presented some evidence that I believe discredits the story. So how in the hell did we come to this "agreement"? It is bad enough when you just make stuff up regarding how genetics work or what we know/don't know regarding archaeology, but you can't seriously believe that we agree there isn't evidence.

If there is evidence to discredit this story, there then must be evidence of a more specific date that the story claims to take place.  Otherwise all that "evidence" is a random guess as to which could disprove the story if it happened during the time in question, but may not if it didn't happen at that time.   Last I remember I have presented some guesses as to when it could have happened, you have presented none.  Instead you claimed to ask for any date in history so you can debunk it.  That's not a very rational or open minded approach.   Rather if you're so sure your evidences prove this story didn't happen, then you should be the one to prove the dating of this story to confirm those evidences actually apply to this story.  

To recap

less than 50,000 years ago and people would have been spread too far and wide.

Less than 200,000 years ago and Neanderthal DNA couldn't have been combined with human DNA.

2 million years ago and farming may not have been possible... aaaaand we're guessing complex language may not have been developed.... but we haven't concrete evidence of either so far back in history, rather farming hasn't been seen past a specific date so it couldn't have happened.  Therefore humans had no means of getting drunk.  

All we need is a confirmed dating to validate any of those claims... care to come up with one?  We might need a bit more research done on the evidences for the 2 million year mark as well...  

If you can't... or aren't going to... then maybe it is a good idea for you to stop here.  It's been fun.  Maybe we'll meet again in another thread.  I know you're a good person.  nothing personal here.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Choice is

caposkia wrote:
Choice is perfect..

No it isn't.

per·fect adjective \ˈpər-fikt\
: having no mistakes or flaws

: completely correct or accurate

: having all the qualities you want in that kind of person, situation, etc.

The flaw with choice is that any given choice can be the wrong choice. Any wrong choice is necessarily imperfect, as per the definition of perfect. Therefore choice is not perfect.

caposkia wrote:
So then should parents be partially culpable for the crimes their children commit as adults?

There is no comparison between a all knowing god and a mortal who knows almost nothing. If a parent absolutely knew in advance the crimes that their children would commit, and did nothing to prevent those crimes, then they would be culpable. Alas, we mere mortals can't see the future. We can't even see the past all that well. So no, a parent should not automatically be culpable in any way for the crimes of their children.
No omniscient god gets a free pass though. It knew the crimes and it could have prevented them. It chose not to, and therefore is nearly as guilty as the perpetrators.

caposkia wrote:
Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution.

Too bad for you that every life form ever observed is a solid example of evolution. Your denial merely proves your ignorance.

caposkia wrote:
Let's be honest... if there were gaps in the roads, e.g. there were no roads that connected consistently from your home to your work in some way or sidewalks that likewise were consistently connected from your house to your work, i would very logically doubt that you were able to use the roads or sidewalks to get there.  That's typically not a problem for most people unless you live in Juneau AK and work out of town.

Flawed metaphor. You look for gaps in the road, and automatically assume that the road was never connected. Despite the fact that doing some basic math and extrapolation shows that every road is headed in the direction of another. And that many roads have junctions showing there was once a connection. Logically, there's no reason to build fragments of a road, it can't accomplish its function that way. Logically, the roads were once connected. Portions were simply destroyed at some point. Either through lack of maintenance or direct attempts to destroy them. Even indirect destruction that was the result of the pursuit of another goal. It is foolish to assume that fragments of roads that all point to one another does not indicate a greater road system that has since decayed. Especially when you can measure when the roads were built in the first place, and you can dig up more road fragments that support the hypothesis that there was once a road network that was completely connected.

caposkia wrote:
Right.  if I believe that, then I also have to beleive we are decendents of plants as well.

Not at all. In fact, plants and animals would have a common ancestor that was neither plant nor animal.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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:

What thread have you been reading? I've referenced at least half a dozen specific studies from scientific journals on a variety of subjects, tons of archaelogical finds that have provided physical evidence, geological evidence that such a major flood didn't happen and I've only scratched the surface of the sheer amount of evidence available. None of which points towards a worldwide flood. The only evidence you have presented throughout the entire thread was an article for a creationist who you said you didn't believe and a news paper story about a drunk moose which was easily debunked. Yet despite this, you continue to claim that we "don't know" things that we do know. 

wait.  You have evidence that something in history didn't happen!!!   Wow, you can prove a negative!  awesome.  So many atheists try to tell me that's not rational and not scientifically sound when I challenge them to prove to me that God does not exist.  I'm impressed... you're smarter than most Atheists it seems.

Obviously, you haven't done me the courtesy of reading my posts. I have addressed this exact same sarcastic response of yours twice already. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

You have presented me with archaeology, geological evidences etc... none of which proves anything without a concrete date as to which you have not provided as to when this story is said to have taken place... Admit it, true or false, if you claim to have evidence that it didn't happen, you at least need to know the time frame in question... you don't.  no one does.

Of course no one does. THAT IS MY POINT. IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AT ANY DATE. Basic logic dictates that if it couldn't have happened after 2mya and it could not have happened exactly 2mya and it could not have happened earlier than 2mya, then it could not have happened ever. You have conceded that it couldn't have happened more recently, apparently you still believe it could have happened earlier although imo the evidence against it is overwhelming (not to mention so blatantly common sensical that a 4 year old could figure it out.)

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

you believe you have proven it couldn't have happened any time.  I have shown you evidence from a YEC that such floods can happen... Regardless of what that YEC beleived about the evidence he presented, it did prove such floods are possible.  

You don't even understand the argument being made from your own source. Go back and read it again. He didn't find new evidence, he reinterpreted existing evidence and his interpretation absolutely relies on the Earth being roughly 6,000 years old. If the Earth is older, than his interpretation is disproven.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

I have also debunked the DNA claim, the no worldly flood claim, among others.  You seem to have forgotten to read the progression of the flood conversation and how "world wide" it could have been.

Where did you do all this debunking? You can't debunk without presenting evidence and to date you have only presented a single source, which you stated you didn't find credible. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

We've also discussed how incredible it is to believe that humans had no way of getting drunk way back when.  yet you still hold onto that belief as if that was your only defense for a poorly based religion.  

It isn't incredible at all. Not every human gets drunk. In fact, the only people who get drunk are people who drink alcohol. Some of us do that very often, many others never drink it at all. Even in modern society where alcohol is cheap and easy to come by, some people live their whole lives without tasting alcohol. We have fairly solid evidence of approximately when alcohol production was started in various cultures. Alcohol production requires certain things, most notably the invention of some sort of vessel to hold the alcohol. You do know that people haven't always had the tools to make jars?

 

Caposkia wrote:

I get that you're trying to make me look incompetent here, but c'mon, you've got to do better than that.  People read these threads and are aware of things already discussed.

I don't have to try to make you look incompetent. I'll let your own words speak for you. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because it is complex to you doesn't mean that the science is inaccurate. All you have done the entire DNA discussion is reveal that you are ignorant of genetics and how it works. Lineage and relationships are not determined by simply comparing DNA side by side and looking at what percentage is similar. While such studies are very informative and we have learned a lot from them, it is not useful in this case. Ancestry is determined by looking at specific sequences of DNA that have known mutation rates and are passed down in a predictable manner from parent to child.

not to me... to the scientific world.  Ask any scientist that studies DNA and they will tell you it's complex.  

Similar percentages don't necessarily make a link.  Though it doesn't directly apply to the Neanderthal DNA discussion, it might be beneficial if you checked out the link I put in a response to Jabberwocky a post or 2 above.

Well yeah, it is complex, that wasn't my point. My point is that just because it is complex is not a good reason to dismiss it. It is precisely BECAUSE it is complex that we can learn so much from studying it. And I read your link- once again you run to the YEC crowd for your scientific information. Why do you find them to be an authority on genetics, yet you dispute their conclusions on the age of the Earth?  

I suggest you spend more time reading scientific journals that present studies that have actually been peer reviewed and consist of falsifiable hypotheses that are actually tested rigorously. My favorite starting point is Jstor.org, their free side is decent and their pay side is affordable and worth every penny. You will find that geneticists don't make a link simply based on similar percentages. It is a lot more involved than that.  

 

Caposkia wrote:

Same here.  Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder.  The difference here is i don't look at you as ignorant, just misguided.  You have come to a logical conclusion just as many have based on what you know and what you were told.  

You become ignorant when you stop looking at the evidences and focus more on 'pointing out ignorance'.  That is basically code for; I'm right, you're wrong and there's nothing you can do or say that's going to change that.    

Do you think you're the first one who made that claim?  Trust me, it's a slippery slope.  Better stick with the facts and not a personal endevor to prove yourself right.  Egos get in the way of rational thought.

If there is something I don't know then I am ignorant, not misguided. And you will notice, I have not simply stated that "I'm right, you're wrong", I have provided links to back up pretty much every point I felt was relevant enough to require evidence to support it. Thus far, you have provided virtually none. Instead, you have simply created new hypotheses that you have not supported with any evidence. Not that there is anything wrong with a hypothesis, it is the first step in learning. Although, I think it is polite to at least look for some supporting evidence to show that the hypothesis is plausible rather than expecting me to put in all the grunt work. Fortunately, your hypotheses have all had glaring errors that providing evidence showing they are weak hasn't required a terrible amount of effort and rarely even required me to look outside of my bookmarks. If there is anything you know that is relevant to any of this, please do point out my ignorance and provide me a source so I can fix it. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

well, not really... many evidences have been presented from both sides.  I think much of what's available has been presented.  

Where the hell have you presented evidence? So far, virtually all the evidence presented has made the story dubious at best.  

 

Caposkia wrote:

Conclusion?  This story standing on its own has a lack of evidence to even discuss to this extent... No one can accept that though here for some reason.  There's no problem to initally claim this story has no evidence and therefore it didn't happen, but when I come back and claim there's no evidence to suggest either its place in history or it being work of complete fiction, suddenly there's evidence.  Why?   

The story lacks evidence in favor of it occurring. There is, and always has been, a significant amount of evidence that such a flood didn't occur and very good reason to believe that such a flood would be impossible. There is no evidence suggesting its place in history except the story itself- although the story itself actually makes dating it very easy. It refers to technologies that existed during a period of time that we know very well and from the technologies that existed in the story, we can infer that the setting of the story is occurred later than 5,000 BC. Much like when watching any movie you can infer the time period the movie takes place in. It is only when it is easily shown that the events couldn't have actually occurred at that time that suddenly the story becomes hard to date for you and you started with speculation worthy of a crappy shoestring budget sci fi show. 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

meanwhile i do have the experience in meteorology and therefore the evidences I have presented confirm the possibility.  

Well, then why don't you fix some of my ignorance? I haven't seen you present any evidence that such a flood is meteorologically possible, although those questions were brought up in the OP. Why don't we go that direction, because quite frankly I am sick to death of beating the dead horse with the problems regarding the dating and it is obvious you either don't have or won't share any evidence supporting your hypothesis that it occurred 2mya.

So let's talk meteorology, but you are going to have to do the heavy lifting here, because as I stated I am quite ignorant of the subject.

1. For starters, how much rain would it take to flood the entire world?

2. Where did all that water come from, and how did clouds that dense form?

3. Is there any meteorlogical evidence that suggests such a thing is possible?

I propose that we start with the assumption that the story was slightly exaggerated. After all, it wouldn't actually require covering all the mountains to kill virtually everything. Maybe we should assume that the Earth was covered by water 1 mile above sea level? Unless you have reason to select a better number. So that would be 196.9 cubic miles of water that would need to form clouds and rain in 40 days, right?

 

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Sorry Beyond, I had

  Sorry Beyond, I had inadvertantly disabled "receive PM's"    Problem has been corrected, thanks.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


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

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Sorry Beyond, I had inadvertantly disabled "receive PM's"    Problem has been corrected, thanks.

Still doesn't seem to be working. I'm getting your messages fine. 

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:

No solid links?? Did you read the article I posted regarding human chromosome #2? If not, go back a page and read it please. I don't know about you, but to me (and probably everyone else who isn't in denial) that is a solid smoking gun. We can pinpoint the chromosomal fusion that resulted in us having one less chromosome pairings than the other great apes. Our 2nd chromosome has an extra large telomere (typically found on the ends of chromosomes) in the centre of it, and 2 centromeres instead of one (typically found in the middle) at the halfway points between the telomeres. 

You state in another post that fossil gaps are a problem. However, fossil gaps are simply evidence of one fact: fossilization doesn't happen all too often, so we only get a small percentage of the puzzle, but we find that our predictions are quite accurate whenever we find more pieces. We have a large number of primate skulls, and a gradual change of the skull to one that contains a bigger brain is something we can see. Similarly, we can see primate pelvises of varying proportions showing the gradual change that allowed for bipedalism (and far more painful birthing for the poor women who have to go through it). Of course, once again, the DNA evidence is enough. When the DNA was sequenced to find out how old our most recent common ancestors were, it fit within the range of estimates provided by fossil evidence. Of course, the range was quite a wide gap because for a long time people were unsure as to whether humans evolved concurrently in multiple places or only once in Africa. DNA evidence helped us confirm that the latter theory is correct, although interbreeding with neanderthals did occur, and is evidenced by DNA as well. That is consistent with where we find neanderthal fossils, and the fact that those of more recent African origin do not contain neanderthal DNA. 

So once again, do not say that there is a problem in the foundation concept of biology if you have no clue what you're talking about. You say

caposkia wrote:
Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution

I have just provided you with two separate types of evidence. Fossil evidence, and DNA evidence (which came later). The DNA evidence corroborated what we estimated using the fossil evidence. Can you tell me where this "no evidence" is? Can you come up with an actual problem in the theory? Failing to do so, what you should say is not "Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution". What you should say is "I don't understand the theory of evolution well enough for it to make any sense to me." So put up, or shut up. Nobody who does science in the field of biology doubts this. Any young earth creationists in the fields of biology (which sadly is possible) are not doing science at least when it comes to evaluating the theory of evolution. They are not leaving their biases at the door. That is what scientists should do; leave bias at the door, and follow the evidence. The evidence I have presented if I'm right, points to the theory of evolution being true. If you're right, it points to god being one hell of a prankster.

Tell you where "no evidence" is???? In other words, prove a negative???? riiight...

The problem in the theory is the gaps are consistent across all Kinds, not just between primates and humans.  It is a consistent problem which suggests that maybe evolution did not progress like that.  Rather all Kinds produced various products of the same Kind.  Using DNA considering the consistencies and likeness of all DNA structures, a scientist can try to link watermelon to animal ancestry.  Why has that not been done?  It's not very logical... but because primates and humans appear more alike, they can try to link the 2 despite the gaps.  

I have read your very short link quickly explaining the alleged understanding of the linked chromosomes.  Here is a much more exhaustive link I read that explains why that theory doesn't prove the evolutionary link between primates and humans:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chromosome-fusion

please find some time to read through that and share your thoughts.  

The "no evidence" part was flippant, because I get frustrated (at best, frequently agitated even) when people make such statements (referring to your assertion that holes in the theory of evolution exist). I have provided you with evidence, and you provided me a link (at the bottom of your post) from a farce of an organization. I'll address your points in order (but too lazy to quote on this. I will keep my paragraphs consistent with yours to make this easier). 

Consistent across all kinds? Where? Show me. By the way, the fact that you capitalize "kinds" here is perplexing to me. So you're saying that kinds produce their kind. Ok. I never said that they didn't (although you can't actually describe what a kind is, as it's another loose definitioned creationist term that is flexible to fit into multiple arguments). Of course everything produces after its own species (other than hybrids like mules, but I don't feel like explaining that now). However if you separate a population of animals all of the same species into 2 groups isolating them completely, after many generations, the descendants of the originals that you separated can no longer interbreed across this gap of separation, because the DNA has diverged too far to be compatible any longer. One species (I won't use your word "kind", as it's never clearly defined always gives birth to its species. After many generations of isolation, the descendants of one species have become 2 reproductively incompatible, therefore producing a new species (or two if both sets of DNA have diverged far from the common ancestor). This is verified in lab experiments. Also, such speciation events are also acknowledged to happen by Kent Hovind, and I think Ken Ham as well (the latter being the bloke from whose site you got your link I'm about to criticize). The creationists agree that they happen. What they don't explain is the following: Speciation events occur because the DNA of organisms sharing a common ancestor has changed enough to become reproductively compatible. Now what is it that stops the DNA from changing more indefinitely? If you can not pinpoint a biological mechanism that does that, then by acknowledging that speciation occurs, it logically follows that the genes can (and indeed do) keep changing. If you can't demonstrate a mechanism that stops that from occuring, you simply lose this argument.

Now, the AiG link. To begin, it is not a great argument (I'll start on my weak foot) to say the following, but I think it begs mention. I don't know enough about the details of chromosomes to be able to tell you what is inaccurate in that link regarding the possiblity and/or probability of a chromosome fusion. I just don't know. However, I think it's far more likely that the majority of the scientific community (with an even bigger majority in the discipline of biology) is correct that such a fusion is indeed possible. The alternative is that scientists are all part of some conspiracy trying to get everyone to join the "religion of darwinism." Another alternative is that biologists are awful at...biology. This is not my argument, but something I wanted to say. Since the gigantic majority of biologists concede that this is true and thus haven't even bothered to address those arguments on AiG, I'm fairly confident it's because the arguments are dumb, not because there is some sort of conspiracy going on. 

However (new paragraph, but the actual argument to your paragraph 3 BTW), there is a giant painful problem with that link. That link exists for people like you Cap. You believe this religion, and want to continue believing it. You seem to believe that a naturalistic explanation for the universe, earth, and life would have you stop believing. They wrote up a very technical link (which I can't verify the technical soundness of), to preach to the choir. They wrote it to be able to say to their followers "see? Chromosome 2 is no problem. How do I know this? Because the way the entire link is written is BS. It says that the differences in a human vs. chimp chromosome means they couldn't have fused....we did NOT descend from chimps! We descended from a common ancestor. The differences can be chalked up to gene change over a long time at rates we can demonstrate. The fact that the link keeps mentioning human DNA vs. chimp DNA differences, it means that they don't care about being accurate, or changing any minds. They care about your mind NOT changing. How did we find this fusion? Did we say "uh oh, we have a different number of chromosomes than other apes, we better find out a solution to this!". Nope. Moreso we compared chromosome to this one and got a large percentage of similarities. Hmm, we have 2 left here, and 1 left here after that....wait a minute! This 1 has markers suggesting it's 2 in 1. Hey, each side of this 2 in one corresponds to the 2 leftovers we have! What an ingenious paradox! 

So no, the differences in the chromosomes don't matter, because we did not evolve from chimps. Also, no biologist has ever examined this. Even if he's a hard religion detesting atheist (are they any biologists fitting that profile...? Sticking out tongue hah!), the fact remains that if they were to somehow scientifically prove that chromosome 2 couldn't have been a fused ancestral chromosome, would net them a nobel prize almost for sure. So write to your friend Ken Ham, and tell him to correct that article by removing the assertion that humans evoled from modern-like chimps, rather than chimps themselves. He has debated atheists, and I think the same about Ken Ham as I do of many people. Either they're lying, or they're stupid. Since Ken's heard the other side, he certainly can't say he hasn't heard someone assert what I wrote. But I still don't think he'd address it well. 

 

Anyhow, bedtime. I'll read this later if I'm missing anything I'll respond to it another day. 

 

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
Jabberwocky wrote:I don't

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't know enough about the details of chromosomes to be able to tell you what is inaccurate in that link regarding the possiblity and/or probability of a chromosome fusion. I just don't know. However, I think it's far more likely that the majority of the scientific community (with an even bigger majority in the discipline of biology) is correct that such a fusion is indeed possible. 

There is absolute proof that it is possible, and it isn't even that rare. Approximately 1 out of 1000 people are born with fused chromosomes. It is called Robertsonian translocation. And if two people with the same chromosomes fused have a child, that child will have 44 chromosomes. In a large population, it is unlikely that such a mutation is going to take over given the higher than average rates of miscarriages. However, genetic mutations spread much faster in small populations, especially small populations with high levels of inbreeding which raises the odds of two people with the same mutation breeding. It is completely reasonable to believe that a small colony of one of our ancestors developed this mutation. Denisovans and Neanderthals both shared our chromosome structure, so it is believed to have happened before we split from our common ancestor. Which ancestor is an issue open to speculation and debate.  

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124

http://biomedres.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/171-174-Bo_Wang.1584046.pdf

 

 

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
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't know enough about the details of chromosomes to be able to tell you what is inaccurate in that link regarding the possiblity and/or probability of a chromosome fusion. I just don't know. However, I think it's far more likely that the majority of the scientific community (with an even bigger majority in the discipline of biology) is correct that such a fusion is indeed possible. 

There is absolute proof that it is possible, and it isn't even that rare. Approximately 1 out of 1000 people are born with fused chromosomes. It is called Robertsonian translocation. And if two people with the same chromosomes fused have a child, that child will have 44 chromosomes. In a large population, it is unlikely that such a mutation is going to take over given the higher than average rates of miscarriages. However, genetic mutations spread much faster in small populations, especially small populations with high levels of inbreeding which raises the odds of two people with the same mutation breeding. It is completely reasonable to believe that a small colony of one of our ancestors developed this mutation. Denisovans and Neanderthals both shared our chromosome structure, so it is believed to have happened before we split from our common ancestor. Which ancestor is an issue open to speculation and debate.  

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124

http://biomedres.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/171-174-Bo_Wang.1584046.pdf

 

 

Thank you very much for the supplement to my post. It won't let me edit it for some reason to mention to address this as well. Also, reading my own post I realized how badly written it is. Sleep deprivation is an awful thing. 

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.


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

That's fair. To use your analogy, evolution isn't like looking at 2 locations, finding no way across, and making it up. Evolution is more like finding a bike path in a valley, and finding it partially washed away (topical analogy to this thread too!). Do you assume from seeing the bike path that nobody ever could have used it to get from one end of the valley to the other? No. Do you assume that it always just used to lead to the river so that cyclists can ride into that? No you don't. You assume that the path changed due to something else. If you see a road next to a river that you know flooded recently that is not even useable anymore with only some tiny pieces of asphalt there, do you say "well, nobody could have EVER used that road?" or "Man, those construction workers were lazy, or had too little asphalt to do this job" or "Who the hell designed THIS road like this?" No. You. Don't! We make assumptions based on what we do know of how people build roads, and then try to figure out why it's different. Seeing a river nearby, and other nearby landscape showing evidence of higher water levels, we can conclude that the river flooded the road, and ruined it. Your analogy ignores important points.

Not to mention that the reason I used the analogy in the first place is to outline that for me to get from point A to point B, I have to physically travel the distance in between rather than teleport. The point is that evolution happens quite gradually. We know by comparing our DNA to other primates and then comparing say your DNA to your parents, we can make quite accurate predictions on how many generations it would take for a common ancestor of ours to split to ourselves, chimps, and bonobos. But I guess there's still no evidence.

no, there really isn't... see the link I posted above... I can see why scientists use the information we have to try and make that link, but it is a very unique case if what they claim is true as outlined in the link.   

Well I addressed that above (albeit written badly, but between my post and the one below it, I think that there is more than ample evidence to state that human chromosome 2 is great evidence of common ancestry with other primates. Also, I want to add something here (since I'm not as tired as last night, and I can't edit that post). If we're right, and the world's biologists are correct, then it means that all life (including us) on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. Further, it means that our closest cousins alive today that aren't humans are chimpanzees and bonobos. Further yet are other apes. 

However, if we're wrong and you're right, it means that either everyone who is an actual expert in biology is 100% wrong about a major foundational concept of the entire scientific discipline, or they're involved in a conspiracy surrounding it. If it's the latter, then how come not one person has come clean? The more people involved in a conspiracy, the more likely it is that it will come out (or people involved will randomly start dropping dead under mysterious circumstances). That is hideously unlikely. If it's the former, it means that your link is actually a legitimate argument against biology, but biologists for some reason don't want to even address it. Neither of these possibilites make sense really.

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

The DNA evidence alone is enough to show us that the theory is bulletproof, unless a finding is uncovered that actually proves it false (as said by J.B.S. Haldane, "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" is done. No such finding has EVER been found).

We can measure the rate of DNA change between yourself and your parents, and everyone else, and from that figure out the rate of change that is possible, and also the rate of change that is the most common. There is no animal that has ever been found with a DNA sequence that has puzzled biologists. All of it shows that it would have come from a common ancestor. Because of that, we could compare the DNA of any two creatures (or plants, or bacteria even) on Earth, and provide an estimate as to how many generations ago the common ancestor existed. Obviously that's with a bigger margin of error the more different the organisms are to each other.

If you have trouble believing that we descended from other primates with no help from a supernatural being:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

^^.....see wiki...and don't ever say that there are gaping holes in the unifying theory of all biology before you know anything CLOSE to enough about it to utter such a statement. Kenneth Miller (a Catholic believe it or not) said about the above something along the lines of "I believe in a creator, but not a deceptive one". He accepts (with no issue...and in fact insists) that this simply happened, and did NOT require any outside help. 

I love how because I don't agree with you, your automatic assumption is I don't understand it rather than rationalizing it.  That is a sign of someone who is using ad hoc statements to force their truth on others.   That's a very "religious" approach... just sayin'

Incorrect. You're not wrong because you disagree with me. The only person here who is taking the stance of "disgreeing with figure X means you are wrong" is you. You are stating that I'm wrong because I don't find evidence of your god compelling. You are saying that I am denying some evidence (without ever actually providing anything credible). 

To accuse me of employing an ad-hoc argument is hilarious. I explained how we have come to the conclusion (especially now with our knowledge of DNA) that we evolved from a common ancestor of a chimpanzee. Compare your DNA to dad's, grandpa's, great grandpa's, etc. Measure the rate of change. Compare it to a chimpanzee, and we find that the time required for such change puts us at a date consistent with radiometric dating of the fossil record. These studies of course being carried out independantly. Then, when the DNA is examined closer (as shown in the link) we see that our prediction based on incomplete information seems to be accurate. Our information is still incomplete. However, we made a prediction based on what we knew, and when other evidence came in, it corroborated the prediction. This is exactly how science works. 

To add to this, since speciation has been demonstrated in a lab now, creationists have had to concede that point. Speciation occurs. Deal with it. Also, the lines between species can get blurred, where you can have 3 distinct species, where one is reproductively compatible with the other 2, but those other 2 are reproductively incompatible. Since creationists have been forced to concede this point, it creates a huge problem, which is the following (that nobody has ever addressed to me when asked). If genes can diverge enough to the point where two animals, which we know with 100% certainty had a common ancestor, are no longer reproductively compatible, what biological mechanism prevents them from diverging further indefinitely? The failure of creationists to provide an answer to this question is a WAY bigger problem for creationists than some fossil gaps are for people who accept the hard work of brilliant biologists. Obviously the link that follows is satire, but it drives the point home well (plus, it's hilarious!) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ

This is seriously how you sound to me. This link is meant to be funny, and might offend a creationist, but if you tell me that the orangutan debating Farnsworth is right there (which is exactly what you are asserting by claiming that gaps exist in the theory of evolution) then I....I am speechless.

Also, disagreeing with me doesn't mean you're wrong by default (like it does in your opinion when I disagree with your god) but in this case you are demonstrably wrong. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No you don't. You can believe that us and plants had a common ancestor (which to my research seems to indeed be the case). Just because plants are a simpler form of life speaking in coloquial terms (where no brain is simpler by default) doesn't mean that we had to come from them. Did you even check what biologists believe before you posted that? I have a feeling you didn't. If I'm not quite certain about something I say, I typically do. 

Of course there are fossil gaps. Fossilization is a rare occurence, so we should expect gaps. What do you mean by "gaps are consistent and not sporatic?" Are you suggesting that we have very uniform gaps between species we find, therefore it suggests that there are no transitions? Because I would strongly disagree with that. I have not seen anything to suggest that the gaps are uniform. In fact, those who study biology honestly will tell you of each fossil what is more human-like, what is more chimp-like, what is more gorilla-like even. It shows that there is a transition because it does bear resemblance to both. If there IS something that shows a uniform disconnect between every fossil that has been classified, please provide proof. 

Creationists agree on most fossils on whether they're human or ape, because they show more attributes of one than the other. The ones that bear resemblance to both (it seems that Australopithecines are where it really starts to get muddled), real biologists will, once again, point to which features resemble what more. Creationists, on the other hand, will simply be split on whether the fossil is human or ape. While creationist dogma will always say that evolution isn't true, they don't have a consistent opinion on which australopithecines were what. This is because (in my opinion) creationists have that dogma, and make it up as they go along. When they see evidence of something showing both human and other ape-like attributes, they draw a line in the sand (with each creationist drawing a different line BTW) and say "this is a human fossil" or "this is an ape fossil". That is a ridiculous stance that is impossible to defend without lying (to oneself, AND others). 

So, as I've said, care to provide any actual problems in evolution? Once again, I repeat what Haldane said. Find me "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" or any other solid fossil that's in the wrong place that suggest that we didn't evolve as biologists claim. Find me ONE! I have provided you DNA evidence that is strong evidence to support relatively recent common ancestry between humans and all other living apes. Provide me one piece of evidence to show that I'm wrong. 

 

let's continue this with your comments on the link I provided.  That will bring more progression to this than anything I can say right now.

Your link was addressed by me already, and by another poster as well (who either researched this more than I did, or has a background in it). So, I will press you again, address what I've said here regarding creationists and their classification of australopithecines. My assertion is that they disagree on which are human and which are ape, because they refuse to acknowledge a common ancestor. Kent Hovind once said when pressed on discrepancies in creationism, the specific example being disagreements in details between himself and Ken Ham, something along the lines of: Ken Ham and I disagree on minor details, but overwhelmingly we agree on everything. The parts where we don't agree, he's wrong and I'm right. Now guess how much time Kent spend elaborating on the details, and WHY he's right, and Ken Ham's wrong? I'll give you a clue. It's less than one Planck time. Why? Because creationism is all bullshit. All of it! So, which australopithecines are human, and which are not? Why? If you fail to find an answer to these questions, this creates giant gaps in YOUR assertion (I say assertion because I have found nothing to suggest that creationism is scientifically testable so it can't be a hypothesis let alone a theory!).

The fact remains that you have proposed a number of gaps in the theory of evolution. Fossil gaps (which are to be expected since fossilizatin is a relatively rare event) and problems with chromosome fusion (which aren't actually problems when you correctly assess that us and chimps had a common ancestor, rather than us evolving from beings that were genetically identical to modern chimps). The gaps in your assertion include the following. How the hell 8 people corralled every animal required onto the boat. How the hell they got enough food for a year on it (at ~1/3 the size of the titanic) How the hell they got a wooden boat to float for a year in the biggest flood ever. How they managed to pick up (and drop off) ALL of the marsupials in Australia (if it was not waterlocked, how the marsupials knew to go there and only there?). I can keep going if I had the time. You have addressed 0 of these points. I have addressed your purported problems with evolution, and it proves something more. Creationism doesn't explain a damn thing. The entire point of creationism is 2 things. #1 is to say "the bible is correct". #2 is to do a bad job of finding problems with evolution. When taken to task to answer problems like I've just posed, they attempt to just gloss it over. Face it. You're 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.


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

caposkia wrote:

except through the written word that had started...  Let's use the Bible for an example... let's just forget for a moment the claims of the Bible and strictly look at the culture and the authors who wrote it.  Within most of scripture, there is a great emphasis on the "word" of others and at what degree that is held even during that time.  What more then would spoken word be regarded long before written word was discovered or understood?  Even then in Biblical times, the majority of all populations were illiterate thus it was the spoken word of others that the majority relied on.    It is why the pharasees were able to pull the wool over the Jews eyes for so long before Jesus came.  No one questioned them because few could read the scripts.  

Consider that Jesus was put on a cross because of what He said, not what He did.  (regardless of what you believe, a human named Jesus is historical and is understood to have been hung on a cross):  SEE here

Using the bible to prove the bible mostly here. Nothing to see here.

As far as the actual evidence, a person named Jesus was written, but only after his death. If there was a large group of people claiming that he did exist pre-Pauline epistles (which I don't think is the case, unless my timelines are wrong), if people hadn't made up a person out of whole cloth before, it may have been reasonable to take their word for it. 

However, that's not even important. Most of the references to Yeshua/Jesus (if not all) mentioned nothing of crucifixion. References to Christus/Christos did. Was there anything aside from the testimonium Flavianum (understood by essentially ALL scholars to be at least part forgery) that linked the 2 people together? The best part is if the answer to all these questions is "Yes" is doesn't prove a damn thing. If there was a historical Jesus who was known by his followers as the saviour, and that was who Paul spoke of, and that is who the early Christians based their religion on, it doesn't mean he performed a single legitimate miracle. 

Funny story is that Hitchens elaborated well on why he thought that it was more likely that he WAS a historical person. Because he's mentioned in the bible as "Jesus of Nazareth" so many times, it seems to be someone who had to be from Nazareth (and if he was made up, they could have made him from anywhere). The birth in Bethlehem (which was necessary for theological reasons) was a clear fabrication. The census by Quirinius has absolutely 0 records. Also, Quirinius was not governor of Assyria in a time within the range of dates that the story could have taken place. These are parts of the new testament that are demonstrably wrong. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Sorry, but it's a law that I happen to agree with, and I would contend that you do as well. Because a murder law may have not existed back then, it does not mean that we can examine events of the time (real or mythical) and decide whether or not it would be a violation of the laws we have now come up with. In that light, I contend still that if it happened in any sense similar to what the bible says, it is murder. The book contends that everyone minus 8 people was an immoral thug. I don't think that the human species could have even reached a reasonable population number were that the case. Therefore, in the story, it would mean that god deemed them immoral for crimes that aren't real (but are in the bible) like disobedience to god, blasphemy, idolatry, etc., while at the same time not showing enough evidence for his existence. Even though I think that the old testament god is a thug, if I found him to be real and unoverthrowable, I would have no choice but to worship him. These people clearly were not convinced that he was real even though he was easily able to convince Noah. Then he killed everyone for their disbelief. Today, that would count as murder whichever way you cut it....or drown it. 

it was never disbelief that they died for.  immorality is not likened to belief or disbelief in the Bible.  The scripture in Genesis 6:13 specifically states:  ..."the Earth is filled with violence because of them..."  I don't see anywhere that it said because of their disbelief...  You seem to want to think they didn't know He existed but there's nothing in the story to suggest so.  

Was everyone there of adult or at least adolescent age then? Or did god kill infants/toddlers? I've asked this before, but your arguments all exist in a vacuum ignoring all prior information. Of course, that's nothing unique as religious arguments must necessarily do that, since religions are incoherent. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

I would argue the same about you. I asked you "which" details. As far as the details you've ignored:

1. I brought up that the bible is not concise at all as to what people's immoral nature was to warrant their death by drowing.

no, it wasn't... but it did specify violence and nothing but evil filled their thoughts...  If God is real, it's not our place with our modern man made laws to determine the justice in those actions then... as you said, the Bible is not concise as to what peoples immoral nature was... therefore no one is justified to judge God in this.  Something tells me that God was there and He created it all, so due to His actions to create, He is just to destroy that which He created.  

"something tells you". That might be the most accurate thing you said. It's a hunch, a feeling, and nothing more. 

Also, creating something doesn't mean you're just in destroying it. It just isn't. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

2. I brought up that the bible does not posit that anyone was informed or warned of their immorality, and the impending punishment

except that God said: Gen 6:3 "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever because he is also flesh, nevertheless, his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."  

This suggests 2 things... that Gods "spririt" was with the people on Earth at the time (they knew God) and that a statement was made 120 years prior that God was not going to keep putting up with them.  

Gen 6:3 is vague, and has been used as an argument that the bible predicted human lifespan. The doctrine of the holy spirit is stupid.

If you believe in it, you must believe the following. We all have this knowledge, 100%, but we choose to deny it (as I've mentioned before, knowing the consequences), but we're fucking idiots. This is what you're asserting. You are also asserting that the people back then had the same evidence (but Noah was said to have been literally spoken to by god, thereby seemingly getting better evidence than the rest of humanity at the time, and certainly better than what we get today). I will keep saying the following BTW, but once again, your story has more gaps than you propose that biology has. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

3. I brought up that 8 people traversing the entirety of human populations to inform them of such was unfeasible, (especially since they had to simultaneously build a giant boat and corral 2 of each animal onto it of the clean ones, 7 of the clean, I forgot to add that part)

I have already addressed how easy it would be for even 1 person to "spread the word" in the time allotted.... if that was even necessary.  

Nope. You haven't. You showed how they could circumnavigate the globe, not cover all populated areas. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

4. I brought up that if word were to travel from person to person, they wouldn't believe it anyway, hence it would be safe to assume that people would have been killed in the flood without knowing why. 

...If I told you that you should not draw stick figures in public because there's a sect of people that get offended by it and kill people for it, you may not believe me and go do it anyway... if you actually got killed for doing that, would you honestly still not know why?  Whether you believe it or not at the time you still have the information with you and have no excuse when the time comes to pay the price for it.  

Did you give me a good reason to believe that what you're saying is true? If you did, I would probably refrain from drawing such stick figures. EVEN if you did, are these killers righteous in killing me? Are they commiting a moral good by doing it? 

Once again, your argument only works in a vacuum, ignoring all prior details. Also, you're asserting that in the flood story that people knew, without supporting it, for probably at least the 20th time. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

How did the people who weren't Noah & his family know about god? How did they know that they were immoral? And why did they continue to act the way they did if they knew that god was all powerful and resistance was futile?

the same reason why anyone does something they know is wrong anyway.   We've all done it.

Yep. All those people in North Korea who go against Kim Jong-Un (the closest comparable situation). To a tyrant who only due to fear and proganda has peoples' respect, an ultimately small percentage go up against him. However, a true, omni-benevolent god is real, and thousands (millions?) of people go up against him? Are you serious? 

capoksia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Perhaps. However, for every verse that tells you that god is fair, righteous, and all-loving, there is another verse where he asks someone to slaughter his son (only to say "psyche!&quotEye-wink or to stone to death wives who aren't virgins on their wedding nights, or to stone disobedient children, or to kill homosexuals, or personally kills people who splooge in the wrong place, or tell Jephthah to kill his daughter (and let him do it, unlike with Isaac)....I can go on. These things are not consistent with someone who is fair, righteous (although self-righteous maybe) and all-loving. It's easy to defend the "context of scripture" when you ignore the parts that are uncomfortable. If the god of the bible is real, he's a prick (at best!). 

it's easy to make God sound unfair when you ignore the context of each issue you brought up.  They're all in scripture for a reason...  the biggest mistake people make is to think that it was the specific action of the person and not the disobedience that resulted in the negative consequence.  

So you're saying that obedience is all that matters? Totalitarianism under any other name is still...

 

The rest of your post has problems with quoting. While I've been nice enough to fix and filter it for you thus far, I'm done with that exercise. Quoting is a very logical process on a forum, and you have asserted that you understand logic. I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you.

If you edit that post to repair the rest, I will respond to it. Tomorrow I might pick a point or two and respond anyway though. 

 

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.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Nevermind, easy fix for the

Nevermind, easy fix for the quotes.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You offered two options above which would be the 2 logical possibilities were the book true. Then you offer this third option here (poorly written I must add), which is a little like the first option, but far more accusatory. It implies that we're not so dumb, but we simply willingly deny him somehow based on our "own personal logic" even though logic isn't a matter of opinion. Logic just is. But your implication is clear. You are implying that we are deliberately denying him like those people that he drowned in the flood. My contention is that if he's real, he has not provided evidence. I require no mental gymnastics to justify this position. 

you suggested above that God gave more evidence to His followers than to the non-believers.  Doesn't everyone have access to a Bible if they want to have one?  Can't you observe the eye-witness testimonies of those who claim to have God working in their lives if you want to?  it all comes down to choice.. if you don't want to see the evidences, then you won't see them.  e.g. if you don't want to hang around Believers, you won't see how God is working in their lives.  if you don't want to read scripture, you won't see the history of God's work.  

The bible isn't evidence. It is the claim. The bible can not possibly prove itself, but it can disprove itself (this goes for ANY text ever btw, so I'm not just attacking the bible here). If something is internally incoherent, it can't be 100% true by default. I can't observe someone's prior experiences. I can only take their word for it. Once again, every time you post you forget that I was religious before. I believed it all. I believed when people told me of such experiences. Also, once again, I've read scripture. I see in it the words of men who would today be considered barbaric, and nothing more. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

What? That was very poorly written but I'll try to answer you. If the opposite is the case, that the bible is all myth, then it would follow that believers do accept false information and ignore facts, yes. In this thread, you contend that the flood was real. When it was brought up to you that people would have to be informed to be able to know that they were immoral (and at risk of this flood), you got caught in a situation where either our language was too primitive to explain, or people were spread too far apart to explain it to everyone. You are ignoring these facts, and simply asserting that the flood must have happened anyway. Also, above, you ignore facts about biology. You are accepting false information (the bible), and ignoring "true fact" (foundational concepts that tie all of biology together). 

The series of posts by me that this was answering proves the point that the ages old debate of who is ignoring "true fact" is never a progressive conversation.  Case closed.  

What the hell does that even mean? How does that close any case? You didn't address anything I said there, and instead offered up gibberish. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I don't feel very cornered... but if that's how you feel... let's really jam me into that corner... what is it that truly put me in that corner so I have to face it head on and not shy away from it???  

Did Noah's family spread the word so long ago that language wasn't develped enough to explain it (impossible)? or

Did Noah's family spread the word once language was sufficient to explain it (at which point people would have been spread too far apart)?

These are the possibilites we have come up based on things you said. "Of course people were warned" (to paraphrase you) you said. The two things just listed above are absolute logical problems with the assertion that people were warned. Let's continue.

I honestly believe that they already knew and didn't need to be warned, reference to my Genesis quote about Gods spirit not dwelling with the people forever.  To appease your worldview that such an event would have to be spoken of and they would need to be notified, I did the math as to how logical it would be for word to spread in the time allotted... if you remember, no matter how you look at it, even with 1 person doing all the work.  As spread as people were, it was very logical that all could have known by word of mouth by the time the flood came.

You believe that they already knew and didn't need to be warned? Then why did you hilariously try to prove that they did? I guarantee you if this was real and I knew it, I wouldn't be doing this. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I know today of the bible. I know it's a book. I know that a large chunk of the world population accept it as more than "just a book", despite calling the Quran, the Book of Mormon, older mythological texts "just books". Of course accepting or believing in it is a different story. There is not ample evidence for those who critically evaluate the book without bias to convince them that it's true. So my question here is the following:

Do you believe that atheists like myself are justified in saying that the evidence is not compelling enough to believe the bible to be true? Why or why not?

Nice question.  I like that one.  

Here's my perspective on that; I believe you are justified in the evidences you have accepted to believe what you believe... As far as all evidences taken into consideration, I believe it is not justified to believe the the Bible is not true. 

If I could justify your perspective; that the evidence is not compelling enough to believe the Bible to be true, then I myself would have to believe the Bible to not be true.  

So you believe that I am ignoring evidence then? Name one piece of evidence I am ignoring. Just one.

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

No. You have not. *1* You posited that it may be possible to have circumnavigated the globe by using a formula of distance travelled per day. You ignored problems with storing food back then (not often possible, no beef jerky back then...). You ignored harder terrain slowing progress. You ignored an ocean (and have offered no comment on whether or not a land bridge still existed between Eurasia and the Americas, or Asia and Australia for that matter, which creates a HUGE problem in explaining how the marsupials ended up in Australia under creationism). You ignored different languages (although if you believe in the tower of babel story, that hadn't happened yet, even though earlier verses posit that it did at the same time....another discussion I'd love to have...). Even if you solved ALL of those problems, you ignored people's likelihood to believe the stories and pass them on properly. This story really only works if you leave realism at the door. 

I ignore the problem with storing food... you ignore the fact that colonies typically did not spread more than a day's journey from each other

I ignore harder terrain.  you ignore that the math considers circumnavigating the globe, which is not logical at the time because people would not have been spread that far.

I ignore an ocean, you ignore that it was less than 50,000 years ago before oceans were crossed and the final consensus of this story was more like 2 million years ago... give or take a million.

I ignore different languages, but we haven't a clue about languages at the time... they may not have existed yet.  Babel happened after the flood according to Genesis.  What verses do you say posit that Babel did happen before?  (not to side track... just curious)

I ignored people's likelihood to believe the stories and pass them on properly... you ignore that belief has nothing to do with gosip... again Noah is building the worlds largest floating zoo... people are going to talk whether they believe in his purpose or not.  

Marsupials in Australia?  What happened to Pangea???   How far from the continent had Austrailia drifted at the time?  

Do you see the problem with your logic here?

What the hell does colonies being close by have to do with it? We know humanity was spread out far. What certainty do you have that they were spread out a day max from eachother, that they weren't hostile towards one another (surely if they were evil, they would be likely to be hostile to Noah rather than receptive to his message). Ridiculous. 

Math....circumnavigating the globe....people wouldn't have been spread that far...gibberish. Be concise. 

The final consensus of the time this story took place (as posited by yourself) is ~ 2 million years ago...language/speech itself is estimated to be only 150 to 350 thousand years old. That would be quite a gap to cross). But then....ooohhh so you DO believe that the tower of Babel story happened. Ok. Why is it bullshit? It falls into the same trap as creationism doesn. Which animals were made, and which evolved? Here, which languages were made, and which evolved? Surely you don't believe that Polish and Ukrainian both came about during that event? If so, why are they so similar? Why can I understand a good percentage of Ukrainian while never learning it? The tower of babel is also a very ridiculous story. As far as which verses say that languages existed before, it mentions it 3 times in Genesis 10, which is literally the chapter that precedes the babel story. Better yet, one mention is in the penultimate verse. So starting at Genesis 10:31, the bible reads as so: 31 These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

32 These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.

11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 

To believe that this could possibly be true is to be deluded to a degree beyond my comprehension. I never believed these things to be true, and it's learning about the bible that helped lead me to drop my irrational belief in Christianity. 

Yes, and I will say this again! People sold their possessions in 2012. That's pretty serious commitment to their belief. We talk about it, and come up with the conclusion that they're stupid. What is it about what Noah did that made thinking the same about his strange actions wrong?

What happened to Pangaea? If your dating is at 2 million years (which doesn't work anyway, but let's humour it for a moment), then the part of Pangaea that connected Australia to the large land mass had begun to depart 138-148 million years before. 2 million years ago, the majority of the distance covered would have already been covered. Not only how did the marsupials get there, but how did they know to go there, and only there? And how did other animals know not to? Geographic distribution can NOT be explained by creationism. I don't think they've even tried before! Under the theory of evolution, it makes perfect sense.

No I don't see the problem with my logic here, for two reasons. 1. I don't have my own logic. Logic just is. 2. When you spout crap like "what happened to Pangea?" clearly neglecting to even look up the dates, this isn't even a question of logic. It is a question of you not researching your topic before you post about it. The ignorance of logic from you comes after that. The dating problem with Pangaea I just mentioned will undoubtedly be ignored or glossed over by you. The reason for that is that you believe that the flood happened based on the bible being true. You believe the bible to be true for other reasons (which you rarely if ever address, but you did mention something recently). So even when there are dozens of easy to identify problems with the flood myth that make it logically impossible, you still stick to the story that "it happened". People can make mistakes in logic, even myself. However, the only blatant ignorer of logic in this thread (at least for the last many pages) is you Cap. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. You're claiming that someone doing something drastic for religious reasons makes it justified to consider that they're correct about the supernatural. Every single person I've seen in my lifetime do something drastic (like selling their possessions), has been wrong. 100% of them. Every single person to believe these things in my lifetime that I've ever seen, when making a specific claim that would be actually impressive if it came true, has been wrong. 

My question here is: Is it justified to have called those in 2012 awaiting the apparently impending rapture deluded, even BEFORE it happened? I would contend that it was, and it was confirmed when the rapture didn't occur. Now in your story it claims that the flood did. However, if the people in question believed in false gods, there may have been specific claims made there as well that didn't come true. If that was par for the course, their disbelief is justified. 

I do believe it was justified to have called those in 2012 deluded... A few reasons just from scripture alone let alone logic in life.  Matthew 24:36 AND Mark 13:32; "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, not the Son, but the Father alone." 

There are many places in scripture that talk about us preparing ourselves for the coming of our Lord, but I don't remember reading anywhere that part of the preparation should be selling all my posessions when I think the time has come.  Scriptural "preparation" has to do with repentance and making sure we're walking with God and not with Satan.

also the third issue from scripture alone:  a close study of the book of Revelation can lead one to conclude that this "rapture" time could actually span several years and thus we should more likely stock up for the coming time rather than sell everything if we think we're to ride out the storm per se'.  

So should we lump all claims of Gods work into those such stories where people were blatently diluded and didn't even read the very book they claim gave them the information they are following?  of course not, that's not logical.  

And in the time of Noah, what book did the illiterate people have? How did THEY know? How were they to know that this was legitimately going to happen? Some guy building a floating wooden zoo is not enough, I'm sorry.

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Exactly. Then why do you keep asserting that there is enough evidence to say that a world-wide flood actually happened??

the same reason why you keep asserting that it didn't.  We both believe we have evidences to support our perspective... me, I believe there are evidences of God and many stories of scripture... based on those evidences I logically conclude that this story must also be true.  You believe there are world evidences that suggest this story did not happen.  Both conclusions are logical based on this story alone.  

No, it is NOT the same reason. Myself, Beyond Saving, and others, have logically eliminated any time in history that the flood could have occurred as you claim it did. There are problems with either language or geographic dispersion (when it comes to informing the world of the impending calamity), where the water came from/went (and why no geological evidence of a massive world-wide flood exists). There are problems with homosapiens not existing yet as per your timeline. There are problems with neanderthal interbreeding. There are problems with geographic distribution of animals. There are problems with space and food on the ark. There are countless problems that you simply choose to gloss over. Each one of the problems I just posited on their own are either a major hit, or a complete knockout hit to the validity of the flood story. You are the one making a claim that an event happened. We have logically eliminated it from being possible. The reason to assert and the type of evidence between what I am presenting, and what you are presenting, couldn't be any more different. It is a hobby of yours in this thread to attempt to use our arguments against us when they don't apply, or say that we're all the same, or say that we can't disprove it in the same way that you can't prove it (even though we HAVE disproven it). 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Double negatives, yay! NOT enough evidence to conclude that the word WASN'T spread. 0 reason to assume they DIDN'T know things WEREN'T going right. When you use this many double negatives, it shows you're trying to make false equivocations, and basically just repeat what I said with an extra negative. If you want to do this, then you concede that in the context of the bible, each position is equally viable. So it's 50/50. Either god's the holy of holies and righteous or he's a prick. Flip a coin! 

I should have said there's no reason to believe it didn't happen that way.  Though in my defense, you've been trying to prove a negative this whole time... that the flood didn't happen.

No I don't need to "Try to prove a negative" there. It's logically impossible as demonstrated. A world-wide year long flood leaving no physical evidence, at the end of which all the animals knew where in the world to go, and all survived for a year on a wooden fucking boat with somehow enough food for 8 people and a shit ton of animals. I can't believe that someone even wants to discuss this as a possible event!

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

 

killed Onan for "releasing" in the wrong place. According to the bible, god let satan fuck with Job to prove his loyalty. Is that morally ok? 

*disclaimer*

I know your whole statement is not above... I accidentally erased a part of it... due to the fact that the clipboard doesn't seem to be working rihgt, I didn't want to retype it... i did read it all though.

Considering that not only had Job gotten everything back 10 fold (er so) but also the countless people through the ages that the story of Job has helped through dark times, it was morally ok because Job would have saved more people because of his trials. 

Again that's one example of context and effect.    Another is killing Onan for "releasing" in the wrong place... was it really for his releasing or for his turning his back on God's command given directly to him?  

Once again, death for disobedience. Totalitarianism. Also, with Job, did Job in the story know why his misfortune fell upon him? At the end, he felt his praising of god wasn't in vain, because all got better. Of course to prove a point to Satan, god let him kill Job's family. How is that ok? 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Your entire argument here is "of course god is all-loving and all-good". Cite all the nice verses you want. But you have to then ignore all the wicked ones. If you're right about every detail flood-related, and all of the people outside of Noah's family knew, and god knew with 100% that humanity would have the least wickedness overall if every one of those people was killed off immediately, then I guess one would have to concede that not doing it would be worse. Of course humane deaths would be an improvement on drowning, but I guess in Christianity that's splitting hairs.

I love that argument from non-believers... we have to ignore the bad things to believe that God is good.... Have you ever thought of why the bad things are there?  Did God decide to put them there, or did people bring them there?  

...and a more humane death... what would you consider more humane?  What should God have done instead to wipe out all life?  Don't beat around the bush with God should have done it.. let's go with what you were saying above.  

*sigh*. You are positing that the entire world, save 8 people, were deserving of the death penalty. This includes infants and toddlers. These are things that you are ignoring. 

A more humane death. "Noah. Something weird is about to happen. Don't be shocked to see corpses everywhere. Yourself and your sons and their wives will be the only humane survivors." Concentrated gas inducing painless death is administered up the nose of everyone else. Done. Was that so hard?

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

However, the story of Job is a little tougher. Job wasn't punished for something. Job was a play thing. Job was being fucked with. Job was a victim of god's ego. Job loves and worships god. Satan says "Of course, you give him so much! If it were all taken away, he would condemn you". "K Lucy(fer). Do your worst. He'll STILL love me. I could stop you from going too far because I'm god...but I won't. Keep him alive, but I will prove to you even if you make his life the most unbearable in human history, he will still love and worship me". But you say god's all-loving so you must be right!....????

the book of Job, one must look at the bigger picture... what came of that story and how has it affected people through the ages?  How many lives do you think were saved because of what Job went through?  I know of a few.  Was it wrong of God to put a faithful believer through torture to save possibly hundreds or thousands of lives?  Was it wrong to prove the level of faithfulness of God's followers and show all future generations the level of faith God seeks?  

I wouldn't expect non-beilevers to understand the last part.

Hahahahaha what? You know several....SEVERAL people who were saved because of what Job went through? How? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

True. Those cultures later in history did have their own gods, and were aware of others in the vicinity. You are positing a world-wide flood, which means they would have to have known of a god far outside their land. Either they didn't know, or god told them himself (where I wouldn't see them denying it if it was true and obvious). 

Also, if the people IN the land were aware, why deny him if he's more reasonable to believe in than their fake gods?

in thier minds He may not have been.  Honestly, I don't know.  In my mind, it doesn't make sense, but I wasn't there.  Consider that today though I see many people denying the true and obvious.  Just as you see me as denying the true and obvious.  is it so hard to believe that people could deny the obvious?  

*sigh*. There is a severe disconnect between us and how we view what is "obvious". I don't think this gap can be closed. I really don't. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No idea what you're just saying. I think you're just repeating my own arguments and trying (unsuccesfully I might add) to direct them at me, even in cases where they can't apply. 

Anyway, fine. 

uh... no.... I have been using that since my start on this site 6+ years ago.. you can reserach my forum history.  Has nothing to do with what you were saying.. though i find it ironic that you saw it as me repeating your own arguments, what could that suggest besides me trying to redirect your own arguments back to you?

Your language is so imprecise at times, it's impossible to understand what you're trying to get across. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Life experience, science, history, archaeology, people group ancestry. Pick any one except life experience, as personal experience is not evidence to anyone but yourself (and if it seems dodgy, check your brain). My brother to this day is convinced that he saw a UFO while high once. However, he is also a reasonable person. He believes that he saw the UFO, but he also believes that it was not there. He believes that his senses played tricks on him no matter how convincing. Pick any of the above that I bolded. Your most compelling piece of evidence that points to the truth of a part of the bible that would make the rest of the book more believable as well, and convince me.

look at this as a cop out or not, but any one of those is a much longer conversation that should be on another thread.  It would detract from the OP.  To pick one though if you want to see details on History, I am currently in a thread with PJTS on that topic.  OT stories myth, legend or real.  

Yes. And you are ignoring major points there as well. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes I've been deceived. Have you ever disobeyed an authority? "Don't do this because I say so" often is not sufficient for most people. Humans have the ability to undermine authority, and they have the ability to be deceived too. What does that prove? A command is not enough. 

does having the ability to do something make that something inevitable?  A command is not enough you're right, so there was a command with a consequence.  It's literally how we enforce all of our laws.. it is a command with a conseqence for breaking it.  Most people are able to follow them without issue... at least the bigger ones.  Honestly, think about it... if you were told on any level; "if you do this you will die" are you going to do it?  I wouldn't.  

But in your narrative, humanity didn't have the capacity to properly evaluate that situation until that mistake was made. Therefore, when they were told something else "no you won't die", they were inclined to believe that as well. They had conflicting information, but they hadn't the capacity to weigh the risks, or evaluate whether eating the thing was moral or not. So could they tell right from wrong before eating the fruit, or couldn't they?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

CPS shouldn't be called, no. However, there are overprotective parents who might not leave a hot stove unsupervised, and remove the knobs when they're not around (if they feel the child can touch them). However, are parents considered irresponsible if they leave potentially harmful medicine around with the childproof caps off? CPS can be called then, yes, if the child ends up in hospital. The garden of eden story is more akin to leaving a child with the key to nuclear weapons, and not ensuring that the house is secure, and allowing your opponent in war's spies to easily slip in and convince the child to fire the things! If the story in the garden happened, it would have been to that point the biggest mistake in history. Nobody is without blame there, including god. 

You are only using analogies that serve to protect your god from criticism, and ignoring where they fall short. 

Whenever you don't have a good answer to the analogies you always resort to the "ignoring" excues.  i think I have proven time and again that not only do I NOT ignore anything presented, but if someone claims I ignore them i address them... AGAIN!  Do I really have to be redudant here?

No you don't. I highlighted where your analogy breaks down in the context of our discussion. You are comparing a hot stove to destroying paradise. I presented something closer in scope, and showed that when something THAT dangerous is possible, you don't leave naive children near it (which mentally is what Adam and Eve would have been).

caposkia wrote:

I use analogies to try to help you understand my perspective.  not to protect God... God does not need my protection.. rather I need His.  

That hurts to read. The last part sort of makes me want to vomit. Tell me, from what do you need god's protection? Protection from his own wrath?

caposkia wrote:

I see your analogy and from that I get your perspective of the garden story... however, your analogy assumes that the fruit was to never be touched ever in the existence of humanity.  I don't know for sure why God had put it in the garden, but it's logical that if it was within reach of Adam and Eve that God eventually had a plan that involved them eating of the fruit maybe when they were ready.  I would liken it more to a child getting access to an alcoholic bevereage.  Drinking it could definitely kill them, but as an adult, they would be more aware of its effects and the dangers and be more capable of using it responsibly.  

That's ridiculous! The effects of alcohol are measurable and somehwat predictable. You can give a child small amounts of alcohol. It's a bad idea, but it won't kill them. The eating of the fruit seemed to have set off some binary switch, where the world went from paradise to shit. That's quite different. 

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
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Choice is perfect..
No it isn't. per·fect adjective \ˈpər-fikt\ : having no mistakes or flaws : completely correct or accurate : having all the qualities you want in that kind of person, situation, etc. The flaw with choice is that any given choice can be the wrong choice. Any wrong choice is necessarily imperfect, as per the definition of perfect. Therefore choice is not perfect.

or is it that it's the choices people make that aren't perfect.    Rather "choice" as in the ability to make them is perfect... and if we couldn't make bad choices, then choice would not be perfect because it would have drastic limitations.

Vastet wrote:

 

There is no comparison between a all knowing god and a mortal who knows almost nothing. If a parent absolutely knew in advance the crimes that their children would commit, and did nothing to prevent those crimes, then they would be culpable. Alas, we mere mortals can't see the future. We can't even see the past all that well. So no, a parent should not automatically be culpable in any way for the crimes of their children. No omniscient god gets a free pass though. It knew the crimes and it could have prevented them. It chose not to, and therefore is nearly as guilty as the perpetrators.

So knowledge is the power to control others... 

Here's the problem with holding God accountable for choices we make.  He has given US the responsibility for our actions.  People who have neighbors who sell drugs KNOW those neighbors sell drugs.  I don't see how it's just to arrest all the neighbors in proximity becasue they did nothing to stop them.  That is basically what you're saying when you want to hold God accountable for our actions.  It really doesn't make sense.  

Also if God did do something to stop all bad choices, then choice would not be a factor and we would all be robots.. this would include forcing you to follow Him rather than letting you choose to take your own path.  

vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution.
Too bad for you that every life form ever observed is a solid example of evolution. Your denial merely proves your ignorance.

too bad you decided to generalize the term "evolution" rather than put it in context with what we were talking about.  I never denied "evolution" I said... and it's quoted here "there are no solid links to SUCH AN EVOLUTION"  in other words, the evolution of one kind or genus evolving into another kind or genus.  Now would I be just as out of line as you were to claim this merely proves your ignorance?

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Let's be honest... if there were gaps in the roads, e.g. there were no roads that connected consistently from your home to your work in some way or sidewalks that likewise were consistently connected from your house to your work, i would very logically doubt that you were able to use the roads or sidewalks to get there.  That's typically not a problem for most people unless you live in Juneau AK and work out of town.
Flawed metaphor. You look for gaps in the road, and automatically assume that the road was never connected. Despite the fact that doing some basic math and extrapolation shows that every road is headed in the direction of another. And that many roads have junctions showing there was once a connection. Logically, there's no reason to build fragments of a road, it can't accomplish its function that way. Logically, the roads were once connected. Portions were simply destroyed at some point. Either through lack of maintenance or direct attempts to destroy them. Even indirect destruction that was the result of the pursuit of another goal. It is foolish to assume that fragments of roads that all point to one another does not indicate a greater road system that has since decayed. Especially when you can measure when the roads were built in the first place, and you can dig up more road fragments that support the hypothesis that there was once a road network that was completely connected.

so how deep does the rabbit hole go?  You have to admit, you're starting to stretch a bit to prove your point.  If you can say with confidence that what you said is a very logical conclusion than it is just as logical to see the broken connections in the roads and conclude that the roads, though they look like they may have had paths, do not show evidence of travel through those broken areas and thus could have never been fully functional.  

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Right.  if I believe that, then I also have to beleive we are decendents of plants as well.
Not at all. In fact, plants and animals would have a common ancestor that was neither plant nor animal.

precisely... and that belief takes more faith than the God following... remember just like your gut reaction to this statement is to say there's evidence, so do those who believe in God see evidence for their belief.  Rather than just telling me there's evidence... show me some evidence of this that might actually convince me that this form of evolution actually happened... General evidence of evolution happening is not evidence of plant to animal evolution and both coming from a common ancestor that is neither plant nor animal.  


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Obviously, you haven't done me the courtesy of reading my posts. I have addressed this exact same sarcastic response of yours twice already. 

which is why it's sarcastic.. I've also addressed your claim that leads up to the response.. so I should conclude that you have not done me the courtesy of reading my posts?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Of course no one does. THAT IS MY POINT. IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AT ANY DATE. Basic logic dictates that if it couldn't have happened after 2mya and it could not have happened exactly 2mya and it could not have happened earlier than 2mya, then it could not have happened ever. You have conceded that it couldn't have happened more recently, apparently you still believe it could have happened earlier although imo the evidence against it is overwhelming (not to mention so blatantly common sensical that a 4 year old could figure it out.)

no one knowing the date does not prove your point.

Also, we haven't really proved that it couldnt' have happened necessarily earlier during or even close after a 2 million year mark.  There's not enough evidence to be able to conclude that about this story.  If your evidence of this story NOT happening is as overwhelming as you seem to believe, then prove of God is more overwhelming X 10..  So you must believe there's a God if you have so much faith in your lack of evidence disproving this story.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

You don't even understand the argument being made from your own source. Go back and read it again. He didn't find new evidence, he reinterpreted existing evidence and his interpretation absolutely relies on the Earth being roughly 6,000 years old. If the Earth is older, than his interpretation is disproven.

Do you see what you're doing?  You are so distracted from the dating that you forget to look at what he was looking at... first and foremost he was claiming the evidence found proves such floods are possible... that point has not been disputed... He went to the next level and tries to claim that is evidence of that very flood from Noah's time, which is obviously flawed...  I need from you the reasoning that his claim of the magnitude of the flood in question is not evidence that floods of Noahs' time could happen.  Don't use dating in your response because it has nothing to do with evidence of such a flood being possible.  

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 

I have also debunked the DNA claim, the no worldly flood claim, among others.  You seem to have forgotten to read the progression of the flood conversation and how "world wide" it could have been.

Where did you do all this debunking? You can't debunk without presenting evidence and to date you have only presented a single source, which you stated you didn't find credible. 

You also forgot to look at my link posted from AIG, how worldly the flood likely could have been... sounds like you really aren't doing the courtesy of reading my posts.    If you still feel I have not provided evidence.. I want direct comments on issues you have with references to the link... it's an extensive article so I'll need to know as to which part you'd be talking about.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

It isn't incredible at all. Not every human gets drunk. In fact, the only people who get drunk are people who drink alcohol. Some of us do that very often, many others never drink it at all. Even in modern society where alcohol is cheap and easy to come by, some people live their whole lives without tasting alcohol. We have fairly solid evidence of approximately when alcohol production was started in various cultures. Alcohol production requires certain things, most notably the invention of some sort of vessel to hold the alcohol. You do know that people haven't always had the tools to make jars?

So... becasue not every human gets drunk.. that is proof that people couldn't get drunk???

Also, you do understand that in all the Bibllical stories, wine wasn't in created vessels right?  What do you think wine skins are?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't have to try to make you look incompetent. I'll let your own words speak for you. 

oooh, good one... guess you showed me.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well yeah, it is complex, that wasn't my point. My point is that just because it is complex is not a good reason to dismiss it. It is precisely BECAUSE it is complex that we can learn so much from studying it. And I read your link- once again you run to the YEC crowd for your scientific information. Why do you find them to be an authority on genetics, yet you dispute their conclusions on the age of the Earth?  

I suggest you spend more time reading scientific journals that present studies that have actually been peer reviewed and consist of falsifiable hypotheses that are actually tested rigorously. My favorite starting point is Jstor.org, their free side is decent and their pay side is affordable and worth every penny. You will find that geneticists don't make a link simply based on similar percentages. It is a lot more involved than that.  

of course it is.  I only said that becasue it seemed that you were trying to use that as a reason to believe it.  I read all scientific sources... not currently focused on the genetics articles, but I can look at your link.  

YEC's have one flaw... they're YEC's... it does not automatically make everything they present false.  These sources just happen to do a lot of homework on the subject and I find them very thorough where it counts... You will find (if you look for their dating reasoning) that they talk much less about how they conclude the dating than they do for the evidences of the subject at hand.  

The thing is, because they're YEC's they feel that science does have the proof for what they believe... Our knowledge in science today must have the proof because the Earth is so young and we've been able to uncover so much from our past.  Their dating is if you haven't noticed, not very scientific... rather they have a math problem they do based on scripture that really doesn't have much ground IMO.   

Beyond Saving wrote:

If there is something I don't know then I am ignorant, not misguided. And you will notice, I have not simply stated that "I'm right, you're wrong", I have provided links to back up pretty much every point I felt was relevant enough to require evidence to support it. Thus far, you have provided virtually none. Instead, you have simply created new hypotheses that you have not supported with any evidence. Not that there is anything wrong with a hypothesis, it is the first step in learning. Although, I think it is polite to at least look for some supporting evidence to show that the hypothesis is plausible rather than expecting me to put in all the grunt work. Fortunately, your hypotheses have all had glaring errors that providing evidence showing they are weak hasn't required a terrible amount of effort and rarely even required me to look outside of my bookmarks. If there is anything you know that is relevant to any of this, please do point out my ignorance and provide me a source so I can fix it. 

We have covered so much that has made your statement above false.  I know you haven't stated "I'm right, you're wrong"... that's not what I said... this is what you've been doing the whole time.. you take one thing and you manipulate it to make it sound like i said something I didn't.   Then you go on to claim I didn't provide this or that... I don't know if your'e hoping we all forgot that I had posted the links or refuted the point or whether you had forgotten, but either way it's getting very redundant with you.

Let's just say I can tell you haven't gone beyond your bookmarks... it shows in your posts.   

Beyond Saving wrote:

Where the hell have you presented evidence? So far, virtually all the evidence presented has made the story dubious at best.  

Much of what I posted has been refutation of your claims without much effort I might add, but I have posted links and discussed evolution angles and historocity from a few sources including wiki and AIG.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The story lacks evidence in favor of it occurring. There is, and always has been, a significant amount of evidence that such a flood didn't occur and very good reason to believe that such a flood would be impossible. There is no evidence suggesting its place in history except the story itself- although the story itself actually makes dating it very easy. It refers to technologies that existed during a period of time that we know very well and from the technologies that existed in the story, we can infer that the setting of the story is occurred later than 5,000 BC. Much like when watching any movie you can infer the time period the movie takes place in. It is only when it is easily shown that the events couldn't have actually occurred at that time that suddenly the story becomes hard to date for you and you started with speculation worthy of a crappy shoestring budget sci fi show. 

let's summarize using this paragraph;

we have concluded...

flood not impossible at magnitude discussed in this thread (link was provided to prove the magnitude in question)

No evidence of its place in history (very true)

Story itself discusses technologies occuring later than 5,000 BC... this has also been discussed. it is a common theme among writings of the time and earlier who write about their history to use current technoloiges in the story despite the fact that they may not have existed in the date the story is to have taken place.   Thus you cannot infer based on the techologies discussed what time period the story takes place in, rather the technologies reveal when the story was written.  

So.. would you like to try again?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well, then why don't you fix some of my ignorance? I haven't seen you present any evidence that such a flood is meteorologically possible, although those questions were brought up in the OP. Why don't we go that direction, because quite frankly I am sick to death of beating the dead horse with the problems regarding the dating and it is obvious you either don't have or won't share any evidence supporting your hypothesis that it occurred 2mya.

.... there's a link... I really don't feel like hunting it down now, but you complained about the guy being a YEC so much you likely forgot to look at the evidence presented. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So let's talk meteorology, but you are going to have to do the heavy lifting here, because as I stated I am quite ignorant of the subject.

that's fine 

Beyond Saving wrote:

1. For starters, how much rain would it take to flood the entire world?

Considering that we established that it likely wasn't the whole entire world earlier in this thread, it's quite an irrelevant statement, but it would depend on many factors.  Not only would rain have to occur, but there would also have to be a major global warming even taking place that would dramatically melt the ice caps.  Meteorologically speaking if the ice caps were to dramatically melt.. I mean to the degree beyond where we are now, water levels would rise dramatically world wide without rain.    according to USGS, if just Antartica melted, water levels would rise 240 ft. world wide.  That would set up a perfect barrier in all water tables for any rains to dramatically flood out land areas.  

It is said that it rained 40 days and 40 nights.  that's 960 hours of rain.  World record rainfall in 1 day was in Foc Foc, La Re'unio'n in 1966 at 72 inches.  40 days of that would = ironically another 240 ft.   So we'd hit 480 Ft. ground water over a 40 day period if these scenarios played out... not including all the ice at the North Pole.  

Other factors to be considred is ocean tides and how they would incrimentally increase with each inch of water added to the levels resulting in catestrophic tides... I'm guessing due to the dramatic tides we see just from hurricanes that tides with an extra 240 ft of water to play with could easily change by more than 100 ft, so we're exceeding the hight of the foothills.  depending on the terrain, mountain chains can cause what are called box canyons or areas of closure on 3 sides where anything coming into the area has only one way of gettin back out... Box canyons can magnify 100 feet of water 10 X or more depending on the volume being forced into it.   therefore a 100 ft tide can turn into several 1000 feet of water in a boxed area depending on again volume along with other factors like rain and wind direction. 

My guess is that if the whole world had to flood, it didn't flood all at once, but did it in waves of excessive water volumes sloshing up with the tides.  Considering the smaller scale that this flood likely took place at, it's not out of the question that mountain ranges boxed in great volumes of water and turned 240 ft. of rain water into possibly 1000's of ft of water for short periods of time.. but long enough to kill anything stuck in the box.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

2. Where did all that water come from, and how did clouds that dense form?

I think I covered where the water could have come from above... as far as clouds forming... It's a factor of latent cooling and volume of moisture in the air.  God would only have to manipulate how much water is evaporating by raising temperatures and strengthening convections in particular parts of the world, than manipulating the jet streams to channel all that moisture to an area.  It's why tropical rainforests measure rainfall in feet, not inches.    Those factors are why some parts of the world can be in severe drought while other parts can be flooding excessively at the same time.    Again I'm guessing the flood was more localized, so I'm thinking there might have been a good chunk of uninhabited Earth that had a severe drought... (just a theory though)

Beyond Saving wrote:

3. Is there any meteorlogical evidence that suggests such a thing is possible?

There is evidences of excessive rainfall in a 24 hour period as I mentioned above and compiling that over 40 days would bring large amounts of water... consider slow drainage areas and you have more than just a major flood on your hands.    Consider the effects of tides and how Boxing in water volume can magnify a problem and like I theorized, floods of that magnitude tend to work in waves, kind of like tsunami's where they can come, then go and come back again.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

I propose that we start with the assumption that the story was slightly exaggerated. After all, it wouldn't actually require covering all the mountains to kill virtually everything. Maybe we should assume that the Earth was covered by water 1 mile above sea level? Unless you have reason to select a better number. So that would be 196.9 cubic miles of water that would need to form clouds and rain in 40 days, right?

I do think a world wide flood is an exaggeration... I believe the author and all who experienced it thought it was the whole world.  I explained above how recorded record rainfall for 40 days can splash up, get trapped and/or bring larger volumes in concentrated areas to ultimately cause a life ending flood.  

Above I attempted to explain the possibility thoroughly without getting too complicated... so if you feel I was not thorough enough, please clarify what you feel was not sufficient and I will go further with it.  


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No solid links?? Did you read the article I posted regarding human chromosome #2? If not, go back a page and read it please. I don't know about you, but to me (and probably everyone else who isn't in denial) that is a solid smoking gun. We can pinpoint the chromosomal fusion that resulted in us having one less chromosome pairings than the other great apes. Our 2nd chromosome has an extra large telomere (typically found on the ends of chromosomes) in the centre of it, and 2 centromeres instead of one (typically found in the middle) at the halfway points between the telomeres. 

You state in another post that fossil gaps are a problem. However, fossil gaps are simply evidence of one fact: fossilization doesn't happen all too often, so we only get a small percentage of the puzzle, but we find that our predictions are quite accurate whenever we find more pieces. We have a large number of primate skulls, and a gradual change of the skull to one that contains a bigger brain is something we can see. Similarly, we can see primate pelvises of varying proportions showing the gradual change that allowed for bipedalism (and far more painful birthing for the poor women who have to go through it). Of course, once again, the DNA evidence is enough. When the DNA was sequenced to find out how old our most recent common ancestors were, it fit within the range of estimates provided by fossil evidence. Of course, the range was quite a wide gap because for a long time people were unsure as to whether humans evolved concurrently in multiple places or only once in Africa. DNA evidence helped us confirm that the latter theory is correct, although interbreeding with neanderthals did occur, and is evidenced by DNA as well. That is consistent with where we find neanderthal fossils, and the fact that those of more recent African origin do not contain neanderthal DNA. 

So once again, do not say that there is a problem in the foundation concept of biology if you have no clue what you're talking about. You say

caposkia wrote:
Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution

I have just provided you with two separate types of evidence. Fossil evidence, and DNA evidence (which came later). The DNA evidence corroborated what we estimated using the fossil evidence. Can you tell me where this "no evidence" is? Can you come up with an actual problem in the theory? Failing to do so, what you should say is not "Too bad there are no solid links to such an evolution". What you should say is "I don't understand the theory of evolution well enough for it to make any sense to me." So put up, or shut up. Nobody who does science in the field of biology doubts this. Any young earth creationists in the fields of biology (which sadly is possible) are not doing science at least when it comes to evaluating the theory of evolution. They are not leaving their biases at the door. That is what scientists should do; leave bias at the door, and follow the evidence. The evidence I have presented if I'm right, points to the theory of evolution being true. If you're right, it points to god being one hell of a prankster.

Tell you where "no evidence" is???? In other words, prove a negative???? riiight...

The problem in the theory is the gaps are consistent across all Kinds, not just between primates and humans.  It is a consistent problem which suggests that maybe evolution did not progress like that.  Rather all Kinds produced various products of the same Kind.  Using DNA considering the consistencies and likeness of all DNA structures, a scientist can try to link watermelon to animal ancestry.  Why has that not been done?  It's not very logical... but because primates and humans appear more alike, they can try to link the 2 despite the gaps.  

I have read your very short link quickly explaining the alleged understanding of the linked chromosomes.  Here is a much more exhaustive link I read that explains why that theory doesn't prove the evolutionary link between primates and humans:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chromosome-fusion

please find some time to read through that and share your thoughts.  

The "no evidence" part was flippant, because I get frustrated (at best, frequently agitated even) when people make such statements (referring to your assertion that holes in the theory of evolution exist). I have provided you with evidence, and you provided me a link (at the bottom of your post) from a farce of an organization. I'll address your points in order (but too lazy to quote on this. I will keep my paragraphs consistent with yours to make this easier). 

Consistent across all kinds? Where? Show me. By the way, the fact that you capitalize "kinds" here is perplexing to me. So you're saying that kinds produce their kind. Ok. I never said that they didn't (although you can't actually describe what a kind is, as it's another loose definitioned creationist term that is flexible to fit into multiple arguments). Of course everything produces after its own species (other than hybrids like mules, but I don't feel like explaining that now). However if you separate a population of animals all of the same species into 2 groups isolating them completely, after many generations, the descendants of the originals that you separated can no longer interbreed across this gap of separation, because the DNA has diverged too far to be compatible any longer. One species (I won't use your word "kind", as it's never clearly defined always gives birth to its species. After many generations of isolation, the descendants of one species have become 2 reproductively incompatible, therefore producing a new species (or two if both sets of DNA have diverged far from the common ancestor). This is verified in lab experiments. Also, such speciation events are also acknowledged to happen by Kent Hovind, and I think Ken Ham as well (the latter being the bloke from whose site you got your link I'm about to criticize). The creationists agree that they happen. What they don't explain is the following: Speciation events occur because the DNA of organisms sharing a common ancestor has changed enough to become reproductively compatible. Now what is it that stops the DNA from changing more indefinitely? If you can not pinpoint a biological mechanism that does that, then by acknowledging that speciation occurs, it logically follows that the genes can (and indeed do) keep changing. If you can't demonstrate a mechanism that stops that from occuring, you simply lose this argument.

Now, the AiG link. To begin, it is not a great argument (I'll start on my weak foot) to say the following, but I think it begs mention. I don't know enough about the details of chromosomes to be able to tell you what is inaccurate in that link regarding the possiblity and/or probability of a chromosome fusion. I just don't know. However, I think it's far more likely that the majority of the scientific community (with an even bigger majority in the discipline of biology) is correct that such a fusion is indeed possible. The alternative is that scientists are all part of some conspiracy trying to get everyone to join the "religion of darwinism." Another alternative is that biologists are awful at...biology. This is not my argument, but something I wanted to say. Since the gigantic majority of biologists concede that this is true and thus haven't even bothered to address those arguments on AiG, I'm fairly confident it's because the arguments are dumb, not because there is some sort of conspiracy going on. 

However (new paragraph, but the actual argument to your paragraph 3 BTW), there is a giant painful problem with that link. That link exists for people like you Cap. You believe this religion, and want to continue believing it. You seem to believe that a naturalistic explanation for the universe, earth, and life would have you stop believing. They wrote up a very technical link (which I can't verify the technical soundness of), to preach to the choir. They wrote it to be able to say to their followers "see? Chromosome 2 is no problem. How do I know this? Because the way the entire link is written is BS. It says that the differences in a human vs. chimp chromosome means they couldn't have fused....we did NOT descend from chimps! We descended from a common ancestor. The differences can be chalked up to gene change over a long time at rates we can demonstrate. The fact that the link keeps mentioning human DNA vs. chimp DNA differences, it means that they don't care about being accurate, or changing any minds. They care about your mind NOT changing. How did we find this fusion? Did we say "uh oh, we have a different number of chromosomes than other apes, we better find out a solution to this!". Nope. Moreso we compared chromosome to this one and got a large percentage of similarities. Hmm, we have 2 left here, and 1 left here after that....wait a minute! This 1 has markers suggesting it's 2 in 1. Hey, each side of this 2 in one corresponds to the 2 leftovers we have! What an ingenious paradox! 

So no, the differences in the chromosomes don't matter, because we did not evolve from chimps. Also, no biologist has ever examined this. Even if he's a hard religion detesting atheist (are they any biologists fitting that profile...? Sticking out tongue hah!), the fact remains that if they were to somehow scientifically prove that chromosome 2 couldn't have been a fused ancestral chromosome, would net them a nobel prize almost for sure. So write to your friend Ken Ham, and tell him to correct that article by removing the assertion that humans evoled from modern-like chimps, rather than chimps themselves. He has debated atheists, and I think the same about Ken Ham as I do of many people. Either they're lying, or they're stupid. Since Ken's heard the other side, he certainly can't say he hasn't heard someone assert what I wrote. But I still don't think he'd address it well. 

 

Anyhow, bedtime. I'll read this later if I'm missing anything I'll respond to it another day. 

 

thats' fine.  

The first issue I have with your conclusion above is you come across as assuming AIG's intentions.  You also go onto say this alternate understanding is not addressed by teh scientific community... OF course it is.  This is ages old.  AIG didn't come up with that article on their own.  Both articles use facts to back up their claims.  Both the fused chromosome and the mutation (I think that's what they said) are fact, proven in DNA and history.  The bigger question is, when it comes to this ultimate link between humans and chimps, who's right?  Both sides feel their evidence is conclusive, but to a neutral party, neither are because again both use facts that are true in different instances.  in this particular instance, we all know both can't be true, so the age old question at this point is who's right and why?  I see missing links in the connection between humans and chimps.... they see the fused chromosome.  They also however admit to the missing links, but are basinig the full conclusion on this fusion at this point.  Typically one peice of evidence out of many does not determine a solid conclusion and I stand by that logic.  

I understand where you stand in understanding these articles.   We can't go into this assuming any sources is or is not credible until we have evidence to prove it without question.  


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't know enough about the details of chromosomes to be able to tell you what is inaccurate in that link regarding the possiblity and/or probability of a chromosome fusion. I just don't know. However, I think it's far more likely that the majority of the scientific community (with an even bigger majority in the discipline of biology) is correct that such a fusion is indeed possible. 

There is absolute proof that it is possible, and it isn't even that rare. Approximately 1 out of 1000 people are born with fused chromosomes. It is called Robertsonian translocation. And if two people with the same chromosomes fused have a child, that child will have 44 chromosomes. In a large population, it is unlikely that such a mutation is going to take over given the higher than average rates of miscarriages. However, genetic mutations spread much faster in small populations, especially small populations with high levels of inbreeding which raises the odds of two people with the same mutation breeding. It is completely reasonable to believe that a small colony of one of our ancestors developed this mutation. Denisovans and Neanderthals both shared our chromosome structure, so it is believed to have happened before we split from our common ancestor. Which ancestor is an issue open to speculation and debate.  

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124

http://biomedres.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/171-174-Bo_Wang.1584046.pdf

It does seem that science has proven that fusion is possible, but they've also added multiple times in both articles that the fusion likely hurts the affected ones ability to reproduce negatively.  The first link talks about the history and link between humans and chimps, but when it discusses the direct link and proof of it they add; "unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this"  

IN conclusion, a fused chromosome that "is similar" to that of another species does not provide evidence of a link.  


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well I addressed that above (albeit written badly, but between my post and the one below it, I think that there is more than ample evidence to state that human chromosome 2 is great evidence of common ancestry with other primates. Also, I want to add something here (since I'm not as tired as last night, and I can't edit that post). If we're right, and the world's biologists are correct, then it means that all life (including us) on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. Further, it means that our closest cousins alive today that aren't humans are chimpanzees and bonobos. Further yet are other apes. 

However, if we're wrong and you're right, it means that either everyone who is an actual expert in biology is 100% wrong about a major foundational concept of the entire scientific discipline, or they're involved in a conspiracy surrounding it. If it's the latter, then how come not one person has come clean? The more people involved in a conspiracy, the more likely it is that it will come out (or people involved will randomly start dropping dead under mysterious circumstances). That is hideously unlikely. If it's the former, it means that your link is actually a legitimate argument against biology, but biologists for some reason don't want to even address it. Neither of these possibilites make sense really.

really?  it doesn't make sense to you that biologists deemed knowledgeable and credible in thier field might not want to be proven wrong?  I don't think it's a conspiracy, but I do think that a lot of people in genearal on both sides of the fence like to avoid addressing issues that might ultimately expose their perspective as being flawed. 

jabberwocky wrote:

Incorrect. You're not wrong because you disagree with me. The only person here who is taking the stance of "disgreeing with figure X means you are wrong" is you. You are stating that I'm wrong because I don't find evidence of your god compelling. You are saying that I am denying some evidence (without ever actually providing anything credible). 

To accuse me of employing an ad-hoc argument is hilarious. I explained how we have come to the conclusion (especially now with our knowledge of DNA) that we evolved from a common ancestor of a chimpanzee. Compare your DNA to dad's, grandpa's, great grandpa's, etc. Measure the rate of change. Compare it to a chimpanzee, and we find that the time required for such change puts us at a date consistent with radiometric dating of the fossil record. These studies of course being carried out independantly. Then, when the DNA is examined closer (as shown in the link) we see that our prediction based on incomplete information seems to be accurate. Our information is still incomplete. However, we made a prediction based on what we knew, and when other evidence came in, it corroborated the prediction. This is exactly how science works. 

To add to this, since speciation has been demonstrated in a lab now, creationists have had to concede that point. Speciation occurs. Deal with it. Also, the lines between species can get blurred, where you can have 3 distinct species, where one is reproductively compatible with the other 2, but those other 2 are reproductively incompatible. Since creationists have been forced to concede this point, it creates a huge problem, which is the following (that nobody has ever addressed to me when asked). If genes can diverge enough to the point where two animals, which we know with 100% certainty had a common ancestor, are no longer reproductively compatible, what biological mechanism prevents them from diverging further indefinitely? The failure of creationists to provide an answer to this question is a WAY bigger problem for creationists than some fossil gaps are for people who accept the hard work of brilliant biologists. Obviously the link that follows is satire, but it drives the point home well (plus, it's hilarious!) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ

This is seriously how you sound to me. This link is meant to be funny, and might offend a creationist, but if you tell me that the orangutan debating Farnsworth is right there (which is exactly what you are asserting by claiming that gaps exist in the theory of evolution) then I....I am speechless.

Also, disagreeing with me doesn't mean you're wrong by default (like it does in your opinion when I disagree with your god) but in this case you are demonstrably wrong. 

speciation does not prove a darwinistic common ancestor, only that a genus can yeild many species and continuously branch out.  There are believers who think that animals can't breed new species within the same genus, but that's not against scripture where "kind" and genus are from what I understand the same thing.  

love Futurama btw

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your link was addressed by me already, and by another poster as well (who either researched this more than I did, or has a background in it). So, I will press you again, address what I've said here regarding creationists and their classification of australopithecines. My assertion is that they disagree on which are human and which are ape, because they refuse to acknowledge a common ancestor. Kent Hovind once said when pressed on discrepancies in creationism, the specific example being disagreements in details between himself and Ken Ham, something along the lines of: Ken Ham and I disagree on minor details, but overwhelmingly we agree on everything. The parts where we don't agree, he's wrong and I'm right. Now guess how much time Kent spend elaborating on the details, and WHY he's right, and Ken Ham's wrong? I'll give you a clue. It's less than one Planck time. Why? Because creationism is all bullshit. All of it! So, which australopithecines are human, and which are not? Why? If you fail to find an answer to these questions, this creates giant gaps in YOUR assertion (I say assertion because I have found nothing to suggest that creationism is scientifically testable so it can't be a hypothesis let alone a theory!).

The fact remains that you have proposed a number of gaps in the theory of evolution. Fossil gaps (which are to be expected since fossilizatin is a relatively rare event) and problems with chromosome fusion (which aren't actually problems when you correctly assess that us and chimps had a common ancestor, rather than us evolving from beings that were genetically identical to modern chimps). The gaps in your assertion include the following. How the hell 8 people corralled every animal required onto the boat. How the hell they got enough food for a year on it (at ~1/3 the size of the titanic) How the hell they got a wooden boat to float for a year in the biggest flood ever. How they managed to pick up (and drop off) ALL of the marsupials in Australia (if it was not waterlocked, how the marsupials knew to go there and only there?). I can keep going if I had the time. You have addressed 0 of these points. I have addressed your purported problems with evolution, and it proves something more. Creationism doesn't explain a damn thing. The entire point of creationism is 2 things. #1 is to say "the bible is correct". #2 is to do a bad job of finding problems with evolution. When taken to task to answer problems like I've just posed, they attempt to just gloss it over. Face it. You're wrong. 

 

yet the link provided by Beyond Saving (I think it was) above stated directly that there is no evidence of the connection between humans and chimps, rather it is a theory loosely based on the fusion idea, which the articles do prove can happen, but go on to say it's not benificial, rather it hurts the affected's ability to reproduce... that doesn't sound promising for the theory to me.  


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:thats' fine.

caposkia wrote:

thats' fine.  

The first issue I have with your conclusion above is you come across as assuming AIG's intentions.  You also go onto say this alternate understanding is not addressed by teh scientific community... OF course it is.  This is ages old.  AIG didn't come up with that article on their own.  Both articles use facts to back up their claims.  Both the fused chromosome and the mutation (I think that's what they said) are fact, proven in DNA and history.  The bigger question is, when it comes to this ultimate link between humans and chimps, who's right?  Both sides feel their evidence is conclusive, but to a neutral party, neither are because again both use facts that are true in different instances.  in this particular instance, we all know both can't be true, so the age old question at this point is who's right and why?  I see missing links in the connection between humans and chimps.... they see the fused chromosome.  They also however admit to the missing links, but are basinig the full conclusion on this fusion at this point.  Typically one peice of evidence out of many does not determine a solid conclusion and I stand by that logic.  

 

Missing links in the fossil record aren't a problem. The reason we have missing links is because fossilization does not occur all the time. We should expect that there are some lineages of species that we may never find.

 Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik,"It's one of those things you can point to and say, 'I told you this would exist,' and there it is.

As this was only discovered in 2004, it shows how difficult it is to find a certain type of fossil. However, it was predicted by biologists that such an organism once indeed did exist. It was perhaps not said (although it would be hard to examine whether it was) that "one day, we will find fossil evidence suggesting something like (Tiktaalik before it was known)". This was an estimate based on what we did know. Then, 10 years ago, 145 years after Charles Darwin wrote his biggest work, and 133 years after his other, perhaps even more controversial, great work (the Descent of Man), something was found. The finding itself could have surprised biologists (that only now was something of this sort discovered, after looking for it for over a century). However, the nature of the finding, the details of it, was something that biologists all expected. This is the predictive power of evolutionary biology. Once again, the gaps are NOT a problem. Not even a little bit. If you found a fossil that was actually unexplainable, then you would have something to go on. Research which missing links actually do exist. Write them down. Save them on your computer. Screenshot modern articles from real biologists today. Learn about it. Then, every time a fossil is discovered, find me one SINGLE one that defies the possibilites of what biologists thought. 

Now, am I reading your post correctly in that you accept that our 2nd largest chromosome is fused from an ancestral chromosome, but despite that you assert that it does not prove common ancestry between us and chimpanzees? I want to know your answer to this question before I continue further on this point, as I don't want to put any words in your mouth. 

caposkia wrote:

I understand where you stand in understanding these articles.   We can't go into this assuming any sources is or is not credible until we have evidence to prove it without question.  

As far as this, I don't have to assume that the article is credible or not. I can dismiss it immediately very easily. They assert that the differences between the human chromosome and the chimpanzee pair of chromosomes that are quite similar prove that it didn't fuse. Of course, that ignores any mutations that could (and would) have occurred in the meantime. The last common ancestors of humans and chimps is estimated by biologists to be 4-6 million years old. Can you show me the rate of genetic change from generation to generation, and show me that the differences that AiG called problematic couldn't have occurred by mutation over that many years? Until you do, you can not legitimately call that a problem, or say that the fusion between an ancestral chromosome is disproven. 

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.


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't know enough about the details of chromosomes to be able to tell you what is inaccurate in that link regarding the possiblity and/or probability of a chromosome fusion. I just don't know. However, I think it's far more likely that the majority of the scientific community (with an even bigger majority in the discipline of biology) is correct that such a fusion is indeed possible. 

There is absolute proof that it is possible, and it isn't even that rare. Approximately 1 out of 1000 people are born with fused chromosomes. It is called Robertsonian translocation. And if two people with the same chromosomes fused have a child, that child will have 44 chromosomes. In a large population, it is unlikely that such a mutation is going to take over given the higher than average rates of miscarriages. However, genetic mutations spread much faster in small populations, especially small populations with high levels of inbreeding which raises the odds of two people with the same mutation breeding. It is completely reasonable to believe that a small colony of one of our ancestors developed this mutation. Denisovans and Neanderthals both shared our chromosome structure, so it is believed to have happened before we split from our common ancestor. Which ancestor is an issue open to speculation and debate.  

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124

http://biomedres.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/171-174-Bo_Wang.1584046.pdf

It does seem that science has proven that fusion is possible, but they've also added multiple times in both articles that the fusion likely hurts the affected ones ability to reproduce negatively.  The first link talks about the history and link between humans and chimps, but when it discusses the direct link and proof of it they add; "unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this"  

IN conclusion, a fused chromosome that "is similar" to that of another species does not provide evidence of a link.  

Except it DOES provide evidence of a link. If we did have the DNA of a 4-6 million year old specimen that is thought to be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, then we would have all of the evidence. Of course we don't have it all, nor do we expect to ever find it all. In perfect conditions, the oldest DNA we have found dates to 450 000 to 800 000 years old (and that was preserved by being in cold, cold Greenland...source: http://mentalfloss.com/article/48815/how-long-does-dna-last ). The thing is, far before we had the ability to examine DNA, it was predicted that other primates were our closest ancestors. The examination of the DNA corroborated this. It's not just chromosome #2. It's that the other 22 pairs are also startlingly similar. If we found those 22 similar ones, but then had no explanation for the discrepancy in chromosome numbers, that is yet another thing that would disprove the theory of evolution. The other 22 pairs line up very well. It's not like we lined up the 22 then said "well, we have to devise an explanation for the 2 chimp/1 human chromosome we have leftover. This is gonna be a tough, TOUGH one!" What happened, is in examining chromosome 2 in humans, we find that extra large out of place telomere, and the extra (inactive) centromere. It's like having a few pieces of a 100 piece puzzle, then drawing the cover of the box. Every time we find a new piece, we find the drawing on the box to be pretty damn close to what's on that piece. What do you believe is the explanation for all 24 chimp/23 human chromosome pairings being so extremely similar, fusion and all? 

Also, to address your assertion that hurts the ability to reproduce, where is your evidence? Here is some that that is indeed not the case at all:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html

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.


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well I addressed that above (albeit written badly, but between my post and the one below it, I think that there is more than ample evidence to state that human chromosome 2 is great evidence of common ancestry with other primates. Also, I want to add something here (since I'm not as tired as last night, and I can't edit that post). If we're right, and the world's biologists are correct, then it means that all life (including us) on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. Further, it means that our closest cousins alive today that aren't humans are chimpanzees and bonobos. Further yet are other apes. 

However, if we're wrong and you're right, it means that either everyone who is an actual expert in biology is 100% wrong about a major foundational concept of the entire scientific discipline, or they're involved in a conspiracy surrounding it. If it's the latter, then how come not one person has come clean? The more people involved in a conspiracy, the more likely it is that it will come out (or people involved will randomly start dropping dead under mysterious circumstances). That is hideously unlikely. If it's the former, it means that your link is actually a legitimate argument against biology, but biologists for some reason don't want to even address it. Neither of these possibilites make sense really.

really?  it doesn't make sense to you that biologists deemed knowledgeable and credible in thier field might not want to be proven wrong?  I don't think it's a conspiracy, but I do think that a lot of people in genearal on both sides of the fence like to avoid addressing issues that might ultimately expose their perspective as being flawed. 

Nope! To show that the understood science is wrong is to win a guaranteed nobel prize. Einstein proved Newtonian physics to be quite inaccurate (to the point that if it made it this far without that revision, our GPS systems would suck I am to understand). Of course, one might try to create a GPS system and figure out the issues at that point. However, Einstein figured it out before that level of testing was available. The theory of evolution makes predictions, and new findings corroborate the predictions, rather than disprove them. This happens all the time. You're suggesting some sort of monolithic opposition here. I don't buy it. Hell, the Vatican have an observatory, and they accept evolution because it's simply foolish not to at this point (As they're more international than just the USA where that's prevalent). Even in Bill Maher's movie Religulous (which I have no problem saying did a bad job of fact-checking), he goes to the Vatican observatory only to be told there that creationism is ridiculous in just about every way. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Incorrect. You're not wrong because you disagree with me. The only person here who is taking the stance of "disgreeing with figure X means you are wrong" is you. You are stating that I'm wrong because I don't find evidence of your god compelling. You are saying that I am denying some evidence (without ever actually providing anything credible). 

To accuse me of employing an ad-hoc argument is hilarious. I explained how we have come to the conclusion (especially now with our knowledge of DNA) that we evolved from a common ancestor of a chimpanzee. Compare your DNA to dad's, grandpa's, great grandpa's, etc. Measure the rate of change. Compare it to a chimpanzee, and we find that the time required for such change puts us at a date consistent with radiometric dating of the fossil record. These studies of course being carried out independantly. Then, when the DNA is examined closer (as shown in the link) we see that our prediction based on incomplete information seems to be accurate. Our information is still incomplete. However, we made a prediction based on what we knew, and when other evidence came in, it corroborated the prediction. This is exactly how science works. 

To add to this, since speciation has been demonstrated in a lab now, creationists have had to concede that point. Speciation occurs. Deal with it. Also, the lines between species can get blurred, where you can have 3 distinct species, where one is reproductively compatible with the other 2, but those other 2 are reproductively incompatible. Since creationists have been forced to concede this point, it creates a huge problem, which is the following (that nobody has ever addressed to me when asked). If genes can diverge enough to the point where two animals, which we know with 100% certainty had a common ancestor, are no longer reproductively compatible, what biological mechanism prevents them from diverging further indefinitely? The failure of creationists to provide an answer to this question is a WAY bigger problem for creationists than some fossil gaps are for people who accept the hard work of brilliant biologists. Obviously the link that follows is satire, but it drives the point home well (plus, it's hilarious!) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ

This is seriously how you sound to me. This link is meant to be funny, and might offend a creationist, but if you tell me that the orangutan debating Farnsworth is right there (which is exactly what you are asserting by claiming that gaps exist in the theory of evolution) then I....I am speechless.

Also, disagreeing with me doesn't mean you're wrong by default (like it does in your opinion when I disagree with your god) but in this case you are demonstrably wrong. 

speciation does not prove a darwinistic common ancestor, only that a genus can yeild many species and continuously branch out.  There are believers who think that animals can't breed new species within the same genus, but that's not against scripture where "kind" and genus are from what I understand the same thing.  

love Futurama btw

You failed to address the point. As I said about speciation, you can have 3 distinct groups where group 2 is reproductively compatible with all 3, whereas groups 1 & 3 are not compatible with one another. Now, let's kill off group 2 (which happens ALL the time). What mechanism prevents groups 1 & 3 from genetically diverging further and further indefinitely? We've proven they diverge enough to not be reproductively compatible. What prevents this from going further? 

Also, define "kind"...wait scratch that. To say "what is a species" is kind of stupid. The answer is the same as the answer to "what is a phylum" "what is a genus" and "what is a 'kind'". The answer to all of those questions is "It is a word used to classify a certain group of life on Earth". The question "what separates one species from another" is well defined. The same goes for genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom. What separates one 'kind' from another? You seem to put it at the genus level. Ken Ham states it's approximately at the family level. Which is it, and what do you have to support it? On the other end of it (same crazy level as Ham, but just sounding WAY dumber) is Ray Comfort in his stupid evolution vs. God video, where he says "They're still finches, they're the same kind" followed by "They're still birds, they're the same kind" (thereby jumping freely from family to class where he sees fit). I hope you're better than that. Can you give me a proper specific description of what separates "kinds"?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your link was addressed by me already, and by another poster as well (who either researched this more than I did, or has a background in it). So, I will press you again, address what I've said here regarding creationists and their classification of australopithecines. My assertion is that they disagree on which are human and which are ape, because they refuse to acknowledge a common ancestor. Kent Hovind once said when pressed on discrepancies in creationism, the specific example being disagreements in details between himself and Ken Ham, something along the lines of: Ken Ham and I disagree on minor details, but overwhelmingly we agree on everything. The parts where we don't agree, he's wrong and I'm right. Now guess how much time Kent spend elaborating on the details, and WHY he's right, and Ken Ham's wrong? I'll give you a clue. It's less than one Planck time. Why? Because creationism is all bullshit. All of it! So, which australopithecines are human, and which are not? Why? If you fail to find an answer to these questions, this creates giant gaps in YOUR assertion (I say assertion because I have found nothing to suggest that creationism is scientifically testable so it can't be a hypothesis let alone a theory!).

The fact remains that you have proposed a number of gaps in the theory of evolution. Fossil gaps (which are to be expected since fossilizatin is a relatively rare event) and problems with chromosome fusion (which aren't actually problems when you correctly assess that us and chimps had a common ancestor, rather than us evolving from beings that were genetically identical to modern chimps). The gaps in your assertion include the following. How the hell 8 people corralled every animal required onto the boat. How the hell they got enough food for a year on it (at ~1/3 the size of the titanic) How the hell they got a wooden boat to float for a year in the biggest flood ever. How they managed to pick up (and drop off) ALL of the marsupials in Australia (if it was not waterlocked, how the marsupials knew to go there and only there?). I can keep going if I had the time. You have addressed 0 of these points. I have addressed your purported problems with evolution, and it proves something more. Creationism doesn't explain a damn thing. The entire point of creationism is 2 things. #1 is to say "the bible is correct". #2 is to do a bad job of finding problems with evolution. When taken to task to answer problems like I've just posed, they attempt to just gloss it over. Face it. You're wrong. 

 

yet the link provided by Beyond Saving (I think it was) above stated directly that there is no evidence of the connection between humans and chimps, rather it is a theory loosely based on the fusion idea, which the articles do prove can happen, but go on to say it's not benificial, rather it hurts the affected's ability to reproduce... that doesn't sound promising for the theory to me.  

The fertility problem doesn't necessarily occur with all chromosome fusions. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html

The above link describes testable examples of that. Now, would you address any of the points I made above? Let me re-iterate them in list form. 

Are all Australopithecines either human or ape? Or are the fossils thought by biologists to be links divided elsewhere? So that you don't have to root through a bunch, let's go one by one. Answer this here: Is Australopithecus Afarensis a human fossil, or an ape fossil (Assuming you disagree that humans are apes)?

How come every time we DO find a fossil, it's nothing that is far removed from what we expected to find when it came to fossils we haven't found anything similar to?

Regarding chromosome 2, the time between what I believe to be our common ancestor with chimps will easily account for discrepancies in the chromosome. Why is so much of it similar? 

I'll ignore the logistics of coralling animals onto the boat from the whole world. Free pass for you, because I desire an answer more to a more specific question:

How do you account for geographic distribution?

How did they feed everything?

 

You see, every time you propose a problem, I at least address it, even if you don't accept my answer (typically dismissing it without much thought). I asked you several questions here, and all you said is that there is a problem with fusion. I addressed it immediately, and asked a few more questions. Any good answers for these?

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:Using the

Jabberwocky wrote:

Using the bible to prove the bible mostly here. Nothing to see here.

no, using the Bible to prove the power of word in history.  Regardless whether you think the Bible is true or not, it still is a reflection of the cultures of the times and is viewed by all historians as a compilation of historical documents.  That's not to say all historians believe its claims, they don't, but they do accept how it opens a window into the culture of the time.  The question at hand for this link wasn't, how do you prove the Bible, it's the level at which spoken word was held.  

I won't deny that the Bible does prove itself, but you can't use that excuse here.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

As far as the actual evidence, a person named Jesus was written, but only after his death. If there was a large group of people claiming that he did exist pre-Pauline epistles (which I don't think is the case, unless my timelines are wrong), if people hadn't made up a person out of whole cloth before, it may have been reasonable to take their word for it. 

However, that's not even important. Most of the references to Yeshua/Jesus (if not all) mentioned nothing of crucifixion. References to Christus/Christos did. Was there anything aside from the testimonium Flavianum (understood by essentially ALL scholars to be at least part forgery) that linked the 2 people together? The best part is if the answer to all these questions is "Yes" is doesn't prove a damn thing. If there was a historical Jesus who was known by his followers as the saviour, and that was who Paul spoke of, and that is who the early Christians based their religion on, it doesn't mean he performed a single legitimate miracle. 

Funny story is that Hitchens elaborated well on why he thought that it was more likely that he WAS a historical person. Because he's mentioned in the bible as "Jesus of Nazareth" so many times, it seems to be someone who had to be from Nazareth (and if he was made up, they could have made him from anywhere). The birth in Bethlehem (which was necessary for theological reasons) was a clear fabrication. The census by Quirinius has absolutely 0 records. Also, Quirinius was not governor of Assyria in a time within the range of dates that the story could have taken place. These are parts of the new testament that are demonstrably wrong. 

I never claimed everything you're posting here in that last thread, only that Jesus is generally considered an actual person in history.  The miracles He performed and exactly what He did is not as clear to many scholars who don't accept scripture.  

Also, if you read the gospels, you might see why the census might not have had Jesus in it... at least not the proper census.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Was everyone there of adult or at least adolescent age then? Or did god kill infants/toddlers? I've asked this before, but your arguments all exist in a vacuum ignoring all prior information. Of course, that's nothing unique as religious arguments must necessarily do that, since religions are incoherent. 

I'm sure there were people of all ages.  I've also addressed this before and talked about how even today the actions of the adults in our culture directly affect the innocent children.  Innocent babies die every day because families even in the United States can't afford either proper health care, food, etc.... that's not to include other reasons... so why have we not overthrown the government for those babies deaths?  That was unjust wasn't it?  It's not fair that the government killed those babies!

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

"something tells you". That might be the most accurate thing you said. It's a hunch, a feeling, and nothing more. 

Also, creating something doesn't mean you're just in destroying it. It just isn't. 

it was meant to be a statement of sarcasm to emphasize the obviousness of the situation... but I guess it wasn't that obvious to you.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Gen 6:3 is vague, and has been used as an argument that the bible predicted human lifespan. The doctrine of the holy spirit is stupid.

If you believe in it, you must believe the following. We all have this knowledge, 100%, but we choose to deny it (as I've mentioned before, knowing the consequences), but we're fucking idiots. This is what you're asserting. You are also asserting that the people back then had the same evidence (but Noah was said to have been literally spoken to by god, thereby seemingly getting better evidence than the rest of humanity at the time, and certainly better than what we get today). I will keep saying the following BTW, but once again, your story has more gaps than you propose that biology has. 

I hope you can reflect on your own posts... I mean you would walk all over me if I tried a response like that... Basically I show you Gen 6:3 and your defense is, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is stupid. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Nope. You haven't. You showed how they could circumnavigate the globe, not cover all populated areas. 

...with time to spare... and it is logical to conclude that humanity and even possibly any other wildlife had not spread across the globe yet... in other words, not only would a single person have the time to circumnavigate the globe, but they would have plenty of time to cover all the settlements within a more confined area of the globe... This is also to assume that literally one person went around telling people as if they didn't know what they were doign in the first place, which is quite a stretch in and of itself.

Again all addressed before... every single word of it.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Did you give me a good reason to believe that what you're saying is true? If you did, I would probably refrain from drawing such stick figures. EVEN if you did, are these killers righteous in killing me? Are they commiting a moral good by doing it? 

Once again, your argument only works in a vacuum, ignoring all prior details. Also, you're asserting that in the flood story that people knew, without supporting it, for probably at least the 20th time. 

no, it's very simple... I tell you there are people who will kill you for doing something, whether you think it's a good reason or not, you will die for it.  Do you do it?  if so do you not understand why you died moral or not?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you're saying that obedience is all that matters? Totalitarianism under any other name is still...

if you view Laws as totalitarianism then sure... We all live under laws.  If we are disobedient to any of those laws we live under, there are consequences... soem small some big depending on what law you broke and how many times... and to what degree... God is not as subjective when it comes to consequences for Law breakers.  

jabberwocky wrote:

 

The rest of your post has problems with quoting. While I've been nice enough to fix and filter it for you thus far, I'm done with that exercise. Quoting is a very logical process on a forum, and you have asserted that you understand logic. I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you.

If you edit that post to repair the rest, I will respond to it. Tomorrow I might pick a point or two and respond anyway though. 

 

I likely didn't double check that post, I'm sorry the quoting was messed up.  probably a simple typo.    You have a lot more for me to respond to and I'm sure the missed information will likely come up again


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

The bible isn't evidence. It is the claim. The bible can not possibly prove itself, but it can disprove itself (this goes for ANY text ever btw, so I'm not just attacking the bible here). If something is internally incoherent, it can't be 100% true by default. I can't observe someone's prior experiences. I can only take their word for it. Once again, every time you post you forget that I was religious before. I believed it all. I believed when people told me of such experiences. Also, once again, I've read scripture. I see in it the words of men who would today be considered barbaric, and nothing more. 

I haven't forgotten where you're from... and you should know first hand that just becasue you believed it and read scripture doesn't mean you understood it and followed it appropriately.  

jabberwocky wrote:

What the hell does that even mean? How does that close any case? You didn't address anything I said there, and instead offered up gibberish. 

I didn't address it because it was subjective... I'm ignoring "true fact"... both sides can and have made that claim about the other side and it has gotten them nowhere.  True fact is dependent in your statement on what you accept as truth, not what might actually be true.   I and all other Bible thumpers can and do claim that the Bible is True fact, but that's not gonig to make you accept it any more than you do now...  Same with me for any focus.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Did Noah's family spread the word so long ago that language wasn't develped enough to explain it (impossible)? or

Did Noah's family spread the word once language was sufficient to explain it (at which point people would have been spread too far apart)?

These are the possibilites we have come up based on things you said. "Of course people were warned" (to paraphrase you) you said. The two things just listed above are absolute logical problems with the assertion that people were warned. Let's continue.

You believe that they already knew and didn't need to be warned? Then why did you hilariously try to prove that they did? I guarantee you if this was real and I knew it, I wouldn't be doing this. 

IF you look back in the thread, people had difficulty accepting that everyone knew... so I humored them by proving that even if they didn't know they still had plenty of time to find out.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you believe that I am ignoring evidence then? Name one piece of evidence I am ignoring. Just one.

The Bible.

Oh but that's not evidence right, the Bible can't prove itself.

how about eye witness accounts Biblical and extra biblical...

oh, but wait, people cannot be trusted.

How about documented cases from the Vatican that God has worked in people's lives.

Oh, but wait the Vatican is not a reliable source and despite the evidence that they take years and use unbais sources to confirm the miracle, they don't look into it thoroughly enough.

Shall I go on?  

....and yes, ignoring evidence constitutes coming up with excuses as to why it's not evidence...and lack of evidence is not evidence against evidence.  

jabberwocky wrote:

What the hell does colonies being close by have to do with it? We know humanity was spread out far. What certainty do you have that they were spread out a day max from eachother, that they weren't hostile towards one another (surely if they were evil, they would be likely to be hostile to Noah rather than receptive to his message). Ridiculous. 

which is why I don't believe they spread the word to everyone.

jabberwocky wrote:

Math....circumnavigating the globe....people wouldn't have been spread that far...gibberish. Be concise. 

The final consensus of the time this story took place (as posited by yourself) is ~ 2 million years ago...language/speech itself is estimated to be only 150 to 350 thousand years old. That would be quite a gap to cross). But then....ooohhh so you DO believe that the tower of Babel story happened. Ok. Why is it bullshit? It falls into the same trap as creationism doesn. Which animals were made, and which evolved? Here, which languages were made, and which evolved? Surely you don't believe that Polish and Ukrainian both came about during that event? If so, why are they so similar? Why can I understand a good percentage of Ukrainian while never learning it? The tower of babel is also a very ridiculous story. As far as which verses say that languages existed before, it mentions it 3 times in Genesis 10, which is literally the chapter that precedes the babel story. Better yet, one mention is in the penultimate verse. So starting at Genesis 10:31, the bible reads as so: 31 These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

32 These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.

11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 

To believe that this could possibly be true is to be deluded to a degree beyond my comprehension. I never believed these things to be true, and it's learning about the bible that helped lead me to drop my irrational belief in Christianity. 

To believe one, you must believe another.  I know that's hard for you.

What is your basis for the formation of language?  It needs to be beyond written evidence..complex language would have formed much earlier.  

jabberwocky wrote:

What happened to Pangaea? If your dating is at 2 million years (which doesn't work anyway, but let's humour it for a moment), then the part of Pangaea that connected Australia to the large land mass had begun to depart 138-148 million years before. 2 million years ago, the majority of the distance covered would have already been covered. Not only how did the marsupials get there, but how did they know to go there, and only there? And how did other animals know not to? Geographic distribution can NOT be explained by creationism. I don't think they've even tried before! Under the theory of evolution, it makes perfect sense.

No I don't see the problem with my logic here, for two reasons. 1. I don't have my own logic. Logic just is. 2. When you spout crap like "what happened to Pangea?" clearly neglecting to even look up the dates, this isn't even a question of logic. It is a question of you not researching your topic before you post about it. The ignorance of logic from you comes after that. The dating problem with Pangaea I just mentioned will undoubtedly be ignored or glossed over by you. The reason for that is that you believe that the flood happened based on the bible being true. You believe the bible to be true for other reasons (which you rarely if ever address, but you did mention something recently). So even when there are dozens of easy to identify problems with the flood myth that make it logically impossible, you still stick to the story that "it happened". People can make mistakes in logic, even myself. However, the only blatant ignorer of logic in this thread (at least for the last many pages) is you Cap. 

I do believe you don't have your own logic.  And why wouldn't marsupials get to Austrailia before?  

I rarely ever address other reasons on this thread because the focus of this thread is the flood.  It's a circular discussion, but fun just the same.  

You seem to find logic where it doesn't lie.  You see evidence that the flood is logically impossiblee... I have addressed all of it and still you find it logically impossible... and you're confused as to why I still believe it.  Guess we're both just as stubborn.  

You can claim I ignore logic all you want... I have addressed it all, which negates ignoring it.  No one has come up with logic to counter what I have addressed... if so, then it wasn't very clear.  e.g. the actual dating of complex language and how we know this beyond writings.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

And in the time of Noah, what book did the illiterate people have? How did THEY know? How were they to know that this was legitimately going to happen? Some guy building a floating wooden zoo is not enough, I'm sorry.

They had God in their presence according to scripture.  

jabberwocky wrote:

No, it is NOT the same reason. Myself, Beyond Saving, and others, have logically eliminated any time in history that the flood could have occurred as you claim it did. There are problems with either language or geographic dispersion (when it comes to informing the world of the impending calamity), where the water came from/went (and why no geological evidence of a massive world-wide flood exists). There are problems with homosapiens not existing yet as per your timeline. There are problems with neanderthal interbreeding. There are problems with geographic distribution of animals. There are problems with space and food on the ark. There are countless problems that you simply choose to gloss over. Each one of the problems I just posited on their own are either a major hit, or a complete knockout hit to the validity of the flood story. You are the one making a claim that an event happened. We have logically eliminated it from being possible. The reason to assert and the type of evidence between what I am presenting, and what you are presenting, couldn't be any more different. It is a hobby of yours in this thread to attempt to use our arguments against us when they don't apply, or say that we're all the same, or say that we can't disprove it in the same way that you can't prove it (even though we HAVE disproven it). 

you have not eliminated any time in history... you have tried to make guesses so as to make it look like you eliminated the times.  I have gone through each dating issue step by step and modified my understanding and guesses with it.  Thus we have come to a conclusion that it happenened much futher back... unfortunately we can try to assume people were incapable of gardening at the time or speaking to each other, but it's just an assumption because we have nothing to go on.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Once again, death for disobedience. Totalitarianism. Also, with Job, did Job in the story know why his misfortune fell upon him? At the end, he felt his praising of god wasn't in vain, because all got better. Of course to prove a point to Satan, god let him kill Job's family. How is that ok? 

well, that depends on what your views of death are... if God created us, are we really his or are we our own?  If we are his, and God is real, then death only brings us back to Him, whereas if death is the end and there is no God, then death is not Ok, but you have no one to blame.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Hahahahaha what? You know several....SEVERAL people who were saved because of what Job went through? How? 

1.  They realized they weren't alone

2.  they took comfort in knowing this trial will pass

3.  If it is a test, they know their faith in God is stronger and that they can endure it becuase God will never give them more than they can handle.  

 

 


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

Missing links in the fossil record aren't a problem. The reason we have missing links is because fossilization does not occur all the time. We should expect that there are some lineages of species that we may never find.

 Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik,"It's one of those things you can point to and say, 'I told you this would exist,' and there it is.

As this was only discovered in 2004, it shows how difficult it is to find a certain type of fossil. However, it was predicted by biologists that such an organism once indeed did exist. It was perhaps not said (although it would be hard to examine whether it was) that "one day, we will find fossil evidence suggesting something like (Tiktaalik before it was known)". This was an estimate based on what we did know. Then, 10 years ago, 145 years after Charles Darwin wrote his biggest work, and 133 years after his other, perhaps even more controversial, great work (the Descent of Man), something was found. The finding itself could have surprised biologists (that only now was something of this sort discovered, after looking for it for over a century). However, the nature of the finding, the details of it, was something that biologists all expected. This is the predictive power of evolutionary biology. Once again, the gaps are NOT a problem. Not even a little bit. If you found a fossil that was actually unexplainable, then you would have something to go on. Research which missing links actually do exist. Write them down. Save them on your computer. Screenshot modern articles from real biologists today. Learn about it. Then, every time a fossil is discovered, find me one SINGLE one that defies the possibilites of what biologists thought. 

why would a fossil have to defy biology to not have a progressive link?  I see the logic behind connecting certain ancestries, but just as one of the articles posted by BS said very explicitly, there really isn't evidence to prove it.  It's a theory based on bits and peices of information.  You may not see a problem with this, but I find its consistency among all species quite a problem for the theory.   

Creation had a plan, a very specific one... there's no reason to consider that if God created everything that there would be any "surprises" in fossil records.. rather you'd find they're very consistent because they call come from the same creator.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Now, am I reading your post correctly in that you accept that our 2nd largest chromosome is fused from an ancestral chromosome, but despite that you assert that it does not prove common ancestry between us and chimpanzees? I want to know your answer to this question before I continue further on this point, as I don't want to put any words in your mouth. 

Based on the links BS posted, a fused chromosome does not bode well for the creature as far as reproduction is concerned.  I didn't see anywhere were they had proof that it not only modified a creature into a whole new creature, but that it was of any benefit for the species in question.  This would defy the purpose of evolution if in fact this is the proof of a connection.   

so to answer it directly.  I accept the reasoning AIG has.. I also accept the possibility that it could have fused, but likely not from a chimp, rather 2 similar chromosomes fused from an already human ancester.    The key words I'm finding are that they are "similar" not exact or not identical to that of a chimp.  

jabberwocky wrote:

As far as this, I don't have to assume that the article is credible or not. I can dismiss it immediately very easily. They assert that the differences between the human chromosome and the chimpanzee pair of chromosomes that are quite similar prove that it didn't fuse. Of course, that ignores any mutations that could (and would) have occurred in the meantime. The last common ancestors of humans and chimps is estimated by biologists to be 4-6 million years old. Can you show me the rate of genetic change from generation to generation, and show me that the differences that AiG called problematic couldn't have occurred by mutation over that many years? Until you do, you can not legitimately call that a problem, or say that the fusion between an ancestral chromosome is disproven. 

yea sure.... uh.. might want to read the link you claimed you can dismiss immediately very easily.