Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:
real life wrote:

I have never worked out a chronology for the Flood. But I have no large problem with the info you posted. In any case, it would be something in the low thousands of years , not millions, if that is the point you are trying to establish.

The problem is, Babylon, Egyptian and Chinese history runs right through this period without a break.

Just trying to figure out a time line. 2304 BC would have put it during the time of the Egyptian Old Kingdom which was around 2575-2150 B.C. It was the Age of pyramids at Giza; the cult of the sun god Re centered was at Heliopolis; they had trade with Mediterranean region. The Eleventh Dynasty began to reign about 2,375 B.C. over a great and powerful nation. The Eleventh Dynasty ruled to about 2,212 B.C., and were followed by the Twelfth Dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 B.C.. There was no break in the Eleventh Dynasty at the time of Noah's flood. There are no historical records of that time period, from the Egyptians, Phoenecians, Greeks or anybody else, mentions any such event (they could, after all, hardly have missed it).

In lower Sumer, the city of Ur of the Chaldees was the leading city from about 2400 B.C. until about 2,285 B.C. and its history is not broken by any flood in this period. Farther to the north, Babylon was rising to power from about 2,400 B.C. on and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who lived at the same time as the Hebrew patriarch Abraham (about 2,250 B.C.), and again there is no break in this history due to a flood.

There is simply no evidence for a global flood as described in the bibe.

Bits and pieces of history, gathered from all over the web.
P

To say that 'the Flood probably could not have occurred from year X thru year Y because we seem to see continuous human history during these years'[/i] -- is a very long way from saying 'the Flood did not, or could not have happened at all.'[/i] Would you agree?

That's why I asked when you thought the flood took place. But it really doesn't matter. There is no proof of a world wide flood during anyime that man has been on the face of the earth. Noah's flood did not happen. I don't doubt that some time, way back when, some old man built a boat and saved his cows and chickens from drowning in a local flood. And everytime the story was told, that boat got bigger.

There is simply no evidence for a global flood as described in the bibe.
P

0 Replies

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/blinksmiley.gif

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Ros,
So since there is no scientific proof of God, does that mean it doesn't mean He is not there?

Talk about a hard to understand sentence... I mean how many double negatives can you place. I have been reading this forum for a while now, lurking if you will, and I personally think that you need to get the bat out for several people.

JoJo

"The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that
intelligience has its limits."

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
real life,

How do you define "the" flood as opposed to "a" flood?

When Pauligirl and I were referring to 'the Flood', it was a reference to the Flood in the times of Noah, also referred to in nearly every culture of the world in one form or another.

Err, not exactly. While yes, we were speaking of Noah's flood, it's not refered to in other cultures. Each culture has it's own flood story and the reason being, civiliations spring up around water sources. Water sources tend to flood.
P

0 Replies

I am Sure you have heard.....
Columbia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman wondered what could explain the preponderance of flood legends. Their theory: As the Ice Age ended and glaciers melted, a wall of seawater surged from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea.

During the Ice Age, Ryan and Pitman argue, the Black Sea was an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland.

About 12,000 years ago, toward the end of the Ice Age, Earth began growing warmer. Vast sheets of ice that sprawled over the Northern Hemisphere began to melt. Oceans and seas grew deeper as a result.

About 7,000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled. Seawater pushed northward, slicing through what is now Turkey.

Funneled through the narrow Bosporus, the water hit the Black Sea with 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. Each day the Black Sea rose about six inches (15 centimeters), and coastal farms were flooded.

Seared into the memories of terrified survivors, the tale of the flood was passed down through the generations and eventually became the Noah story

..., As well as all of the other stories in every other religion.

JoJo

0 Replies

jojodancingbear Wrote:

Quote:

Talk about a hard to understand sentence... I mean how many double negatives can you place. I have been reading this forum for a while now, lurking if you will, and I personally think that you need to get the bat out for several people.

Perhaps it was. Perhaps I didn't ask it in the proper way.

All I was trying to say is I was confused how Ros could accept that just because something hadn't been found yet, it did not discount its existence.

I was just asking why the same couldn't be said for the existence of God?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Much appreicated; we must be understood by all the bible thumpers who seem to define words in many different ways.

neo wrote:
As well as those who have no defintion at all.

That too!

C.I.,

I know you are not stupid. Why do you insist on projecting to others that you are?

Don't you realize that when Neo said, "As well as those who have no definition at all," he was referring to you?

Why do you say that, MA? And why did you change the spelling of defintion to definition. Perhaps you thought to correct what you perceived as a misspelling - when everyone on the board knows my spelling is beyond correction. Actually I was referring to a new term I have created defintion. After all, I am a neologist; and that is what neologists doe, is it not? So here is the definition of my new word:

Defintion; Noun. The state of not having fins. Defintiate; Adj. Finless.
Note that these are contrasted with earlier terms: Fintion (The state of having fins) and Fintiate (Finned)

These, I think you will agree, are very useful terms. For example: when it comes time to tip the waiter and all you have is a double sawbuck, your claim of defintion may be used to extract a fin from your table partner. You might say 'Er, I seem to be defintiate, could you spare a five?'

Also, certain animals and vegatables at various stages of evolution can be said to have either attained a state of fintion or defintion:

Land sharks, for example, have evolved from defintion to become the quintessential vegetable. They not only defend the garden from rabbits and insect pests, but have been known to repel gardeners, thereby establishing the evolutionary supremacy of plants.

Fish, on the other hand, having become defintiate, have now evolved over countless generations into the hunter - gardener, thereby setting up the final war - the evolutionary armageddon, so to speak, where animals and vegetables will eat each other into oblivion, leaving only the true survivors as expected from the laws of thermodynamics - minerals.

0 Replies

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/biggrin.gif

Actually Neo, I didn't even notice it was spelled that way! I absolutely love your sense of humor!

0 Replies

Er, welcome to the forum, jojo. Your signature is a test, right?

"The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligience has its limits."

Snicker Laughing

0 Replies

What I have garnered from this BB.
After reading the posts and reposts and reposts....hence the bat I mentioned before, I find that it comes down to a basic premise of sorts. Evolution/Natural Selection as defined by Darwin and Wallace, his predecessor, was just that, a theory. Now let me explain my definition of the word "theory," it is means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. Now until you can take "The Flood"
myth and produce at least some physical evidence to explain it other than a translation of a translation of a translation of a papyrus by someone who knew someone, it is just that, a fairy tale, not even a theory or the hearsay. I will take Evolution until it is proven wrong logically by fact and discernible evidence.

just my $2 worth

The JoJo

0 Replies

Neo,

I wonder if God gives rebates? Think jojo might get his $2.00 back?

I understand what you are saying jojo. From my perspective, you accept man's word over God's. Man made up science. Man made what science is. The guy who invented the thermometer could have said water freezes at 100 degrees F if he had wanted to.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Neo,

I wonder if God gives rebates? Think jojo might get his $2.00 back?

I understand what you are saying jojo. From my perspective, you accept man's word over God's. Man made up science. Man made what science is. The guy who invented the thermometer could have said water freezes at 100 degrees F if he had wanted to.

But, Momma, he would have had to invent a thermometer that reads 100° F when the water freezes. God gave us all our talents, even the scientists. As I have said before... I believe that science and creation can co-exist. Science has actually proven much of what we read in the bible.

MA.. jojo has a right to his/her opinion just as we do. Whether you or I or anybody else agrees with it is secondary. If jojo wants to give $2.00 instead of 2ø then that is the price to pay. No rebates either way.

You gotta take a breath, step back and re-focus. Just some friendly advice from a friend.

0 Replies

Advice taken, Intrepid. Thank you. It's been a rough day for me. Personal stuff.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Neo,

I wonder if God gives rebates? Think jojo might get his $2.00 back?

I understand what you are saying jojo. From my perspective, you accept man's word over God's. Man made up science. Man made what science is. The guy who invented the thermometer could have said water freezes at 100 degrees F if he had wanted to.

The thing you have to remember, it is just your perspective. To some of us, there is no god, so of course we take man's word. But only after it's be tested and proven. Man did not "make up" science. The laws of nature are just that, nature. Man just tested em and wrote em down. He can't make water freeze at the boiling point, no matter what label he puts on the thermometer.
P

0 Replies

I wonder if God gives rebates? Think jojo might get his $2.00 back?

I understand what you are saying jojo. From my perspective, you accept man's word over God's. Man made up science. Man made what science is. The guy who invented the thermometer could have said water freezes at 100 degrees F if he had wanted to.

Hey call me cynic, but I believe what I can see.....call me a never been there Missourian.

The JoJo's $10 worth.....No rebate needed!!!!!!!!!! gotta go till tomorrow...had fun. Keep up the Good Work Guys and Gals

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Ros,

I'm confused. You said, "All we know is that we have no fossils, but that doesn't mean they weren't there......

So since there is no scientific proof of God, does that mean it doesn't mean He is not there?

I'm sorry to confuse you with sarcasm Momma. The simple fact is that RL's argument is based on a bit of oversimplified logic which doesn't reflect the scope of biology and populations which are actually measured.

It's a specious argument.

0 Replies

Intrepid; Stop scaring us with those faces. Please.

Anybody want to take a stab at what constitutes proof?

Maybe it belongs in the philosophy section, but it seems an appropriate question here, nevertheless.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Ros,

I'm confused. You said, "All we know is that we have no fossils, but that doesn't mean they weren't there......

So since there is no scientific proof of God, does that mean it doesn't mean He is not there?

I'm sorry to confuse you with sarcasm Momma. The simple fact is that RL's argument is based on a bit of oversimplified logic which doesn't reflect the scope of biology and populations which are actually measured.

It's a specious argument.

Mine? 'Oversimplified logic?'

I love it.

Yes, it's simple.

And it's logical.

The fact is, you can't make an argument from silence stick, Ros.

If you want to look at a strata of rock (that's supposed to be) from the X Period and say 'hmmmm there are no fossils of ABC animal that we can find here, therefore they must not have been around then.' ------- now THAT'S a specious argument.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Mine? 'Oversimplified logic?'

Yes.

The fossil evidence is not one or two shells found in a cliff. In many cases, it's the recorded change of whole ecosystems. Your oversimplified logic ignores the reality of the bulk of the evidence, and focuses on an isolated logical statement which doesn't apply to the body of evidence.

Specious.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Anybody want to take a stab at what constitutes proof?

Usage of the term "proof" is of course the core of the difference of opinion in many of these debates.

I use "proof" in a scientific and legal sense, where it means "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

The other usage would be philosophical, where "proof" relates in some way to "knowing". Scientists who are talking about evolution are using proof in a scientific sense.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know