Yeah great post. Basically a circular argument --- 'if all the things evolutionists assume are true, then the Flood can not have happened.'
As in:
Quote:Not everybody has flood myths. And for those that do, remember, it is THEIR ANCESTORS who survive, and those ancestors are NOT related to Noah--kinda makes it hard for you to use those myths as somehow supportive of the biblical flood.
farmerman wrote:
Real life then tries to state that isnt this a failure in evolution. Real life has an imperfect acceptance of evidence and data because he doesnt wish to recognize the other side of evolution , which is extinction.
Would you like to show me where I said I don't recognize that extinction occurs?
Or how about explaining what fault you find with my question:
real life wrote:
If a new species 'evolved' from a existing species, then at some early point do you not begin with just two of the new species?
real not only doesn't have a clue about logic, but uses other's posts to confirm that the world flood is a myth.
Way to go, real. Keep on truck'n; you're helping to defeat your own arguments.
No, real, you don't have a breeding population of just two. You don't seem to have much of an idea of how nature works. You've got a breeding population of thousands up to billions or more, depending on the species. If a mutation (often tho not always from a single individual) proves beneficial, the offspring who have it survive better and spread it thru the population as they reproduce over the generations, but it's still just part of the whole genetic package that the group shares as they interbreed. Some inherit the trait, some of the population don't.
Sickle cell anemia, for example, which confers some protection against malaria in regions where it is endemic, tho it has other costs to those who have the trait. has spread to about twenty percent of the population. Not everyone has it, and that's over thousands of years of inheritance in the entire population.
And, real, no, it is not circular. There is NO evidence, from any kind of source, other than the bible, for the flood. The physical evidence comes from studies that have no particular evolutionary perspective, simply because they aren't asking questions about biology. That includes the hard sciences, including physics, geology, and biology, as well as epigraphical evidence from the written record, historical evidence, and archaeological evidence, to which, believe me, evolution is often irrelevant, simply because it concerns recent human history and far too short a time frame for species change or origins to have any bearing.
Either all the data are wrong, or the flood is wrong. Since you only have one source, of questionable validity, for the flood, and since you inerrantists even deny what the vast bulk of people who have studied the origins of the bible tell you about the book, I'd say you guys have the task, which certainly seems a reasonable one to ask of you, of coming up with SOME, or ANY, independent evidence, which you have so far failed to do, or basically admitting that you have no evidence and just take the story on faith alone.
real life wrote:Or how about explaining what fault you find with my question:
real life wrote:
If a new species 'evolved' from a existing species, then at some early point do you not begin with just two of the new species?
Apparently you weren't joking. You actually believe this.
RL, evolution doesn't work that way, not even close.
It's no wonder you object to the theory, you don't understand it. Hell, the way you describe it, I wouldn't agree with it either.
Evolution is about populations, not individuals. A new species never "pops" out of an existing species in a single generation, or even a hundred generations. Populations diverge over time, and eventually their ancestors become extinct (often due to competition from more evolved decendants). Populations diverge; new species result.
I think the only time real was awake in class was during "bible studies," but then that's even questionable. He seems to have slept through everything else.
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Or how about explaining what fault you find with my question:
real life wrote:
If a new species 'evolved' from a existing species, then at some early point do you not begin with just two of the new species?
Apparently you weren't joking. You actually believe this.
RL, evolution doesn't work that way, not even close.
It's no wonder you object to the theory, you don't understand it. Hell, the way you describe it, I wouldn't agree with it either.
Evolution is about populations, not individuals. A new species never "pops" out of an existing species in a single generation, or even a hundred generations. Populations diverge over time, and eventually their ancestors become extinct (often due to competition from more evolved decendants). Populations diverge; new species result.
Hi Ros,
Yes I am well aware how evolution is postulated to work over long periods of time, many generations. I think you misunderstood my post.
username wrote:And, real, no, it is not circular.......
Your argument which I cited is circular:
'Those who are alive today (the descendants of the survivors of various Flood stories) are not descended from Noah, because the Flood is a myth. The Flood is obviously a myth because not everyone alive today is descended from Noah.'
real, Explain the circular logic of username's statement "Those who are alive today (the descendants of the survivors of various Flood stories) are not descended from Noah, because the Flood is a myth. The Flood is obviously a myth because not everyone alive today is descended from Noah."
You can't call something "circular logic" without explaining why.
username wrote:And, real, no, it is not circular. There is NO evidence, from any kind of source, other than the bible, for the flood. The physical evidence comes from studies that have no particular evolutionary perspective, simply because they aren't asking questions about biology. That includes the hard sciences, including physics, geology, and biology, as well as epigraphical evidence from the written record, historical evidence, and archaeological evidence, to which, believe me, evolution is often irrelevant, simply because it concerns recent human history and far too short a time frame for species change or origins to have any bearing.
Either all the data are wrong, or the flood is wrong. Since you only have one source, of questionable validity, for the flood, and since you inerrantists even deny what the vast bulk of people who have studied the origins of the bible tell you about the book, Id say you guys have the task, which certainly seems a reasonable one to ask of you, of coming up with SOME, or ANY, independent evidence, which you have so far failed to do, or basically admitting that you have no evidence and just take the story on faith alone.
As far as the evidence is concerned, we all have the same evidence. The weight we assign to the available evidence and the conclusions we draw therefrom define us. We would want to be sure that our mental endeavor is not smudged by either a desire for moral license or the vain hope of some reward.
That being said, I should point out that the flood story is found in many civilizations. And the stories have some interesting commonalities which have been pointed out in other posts.
You make a comment about what "the vast bulk of people who have studied the origins of the bible tell you about the book." It has been my experience that the vast bulk of written information
about the bible is spurious and full of straw men. Whereas the bible itself, if studied honestly, is quite a consistent and reliable guide.
cicerone imposter wrote:real, Explain the circular logic of username's statement "Those who are alive today (the descendants of the survivors of various Flood stories) are not descended from Noah, because the Flood is a myth. The Flood is obviously a myth because not everyone alive today is descended from Noah."
You can't call something "circular logic" without explaining why.
I find it hard to believe you can't see the circularity in that statement; but let me restate:
Not everyone alive today is descended from Noah. How do we know? Because the flood is a myth. How do we know the flood is a myth? Because there are those alive today who are not descendants of Noah. How do we know? Because the flood is a myth, etc., etc..
neo, Where is the "circular logic?"
First sentence: E does not equal N
Second sentence: How do we know?
Third sentence: F is a myth
Forth sentence: How do we know the Flood is a myth?
Fifth sentence: E does not equal N
Sixth sentence: How do we know?
Sixth sentence: F is a myth.
Nothing circular about it.
I doubt very much you understand what "circular logic" means.
neologist wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:real, Explain the circular logic of username's statement "Those who are alive today (the descendants of the survivors of various Flood stories) are not descended from Noah, because the Flood is a myth. The Flood is obviously a myth because not everyone alive today is descended from Noah."
You can't call something "circular logic" without explaining why.
I find it hard to believe you can't see the circularity in that statement; but let me restate:
Not everyone alive today is descended from Noah. How do we know? Because the flood is a myth. How do we know the flood is a myth? Because there are those alive today who are not descendants of Noah. How do we know? Because the flood is a myth, etc., etc..
Neo has the coolest smilies.
Good to hear from you, my friend. Hope you have been doing well while these fellers have been spinning their circles.
Circular logic is when you bible-thumpers make a statement from the bible, and use the bible to support it.
When statements are true based on its own merits or can be supported by science, there is nothing circular about it.
But that's about the level we can expect from you bible-thumpers - keep repeating verses from the bible that you can't even interpret consistently and rationalize away all the killings, bigotry, and rapes of your god.
That you bible-thumpers would put your whole faith in a comic book is about as ignorant as one can be. LOL
Okay, you bible-thumpers, rationalize the following demand from your god?
mesquite wrote:
It is the Basis of a religion purported to be the word of God. Numbers 31 begins with
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
and goes on to say
17. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Thirty-two thousand was the count of female virgin children in the above scripture.
35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
Numbers 31
And praytell, what did god have in mind with these virgin women children?
And how were they supposed to learn that man did not lay with them?
