gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 01:26 pm
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cequc502.html

Quote:

...Unfortunately, as Margolis admits, `no cell has yet crawled out of a test tube,' and thousands of similar experiments, have produced goopy organic tars, but no recognizable life....



The "goopy organic tars" are what you'd find in ancient rocks had there ever been a "prebiotic soup".
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 01:27 pm
Why abiogenesis is impossible:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 01:32 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Quote:

What compounds has he looked for and in what age of rocks do they first appear? Give me some explanation of what the heck he is talking about, or else this is inadmissable.
...in order for the theories about life arising out of this stuff by chance to have any shot, this soup would have been thick and consisted of tarry elements which would have impregnated any rocks they came into contact with the same way in which bituminous elements impregnated the remains of ancient forests to create coal.

Nonsense. Cite your source.

gungasnake wrote:
The evidence this would have left would be very, very obvious; nonetheless as Denton notes, there is no such evidence on this planet.

Answer my previous question about what compounds they have looked for, and in what age of rocks they do first appear.

Okay, you have shown some skill at changing the subject when cornered. Now cite your source and clarify the previous citation as requested or admit that it's all malarky.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 01:32 pm
gungasnake wrote:


I can't believe you cited an creationresearch site as a source. And you worry about science having an agenda? Come on... if anyone has an agenda, it's the creationreseach guys. Just look at their name and tell me they aren't starting from an assumption which is non-scientific.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:42 pm
© 2002 ENSI (Evolution & the Nature of Science Institutes) www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb
This material may be copied only for noncommercial classroom teaching purposes, and only if this source is clearly cited.






DEEP TIME
FINDING THE AGES OF ROCKS & FOSSILS

by Larry Flammer






EVOLUTION

Geo/Paleo Patterns
SYNOPSIS This lesson should effectively and accurately inform students about the high level of confidence we have in the geological ages of an old Earth. At the same time, it should reveal an example of pseudoscience which should be part of any effort to improve science literacy and critical thinking.

Students are taken through a combination of some background information and interactive experiences, and checked frequently by questions to confirm understanding. The narrative includes concepts of isotopes, radioactive decay, half-life, mineral formation, age analyses, Fair Test questions, and isochrons. The lesson can be used as a one-day team activity, individually in class, or as a self-teaching homework assignment. It is intended to either stand by itself, or to serve as a useful introduction to the very effective online interactive Virtual Age Dating Tutorial. This lesson would be helpful in Biology, Earth Science, Physical Science, Physics, Chemistry, or Geology classes.
CONCEPTS 1. Several independent lines of evidence confirm that the Earth is billions of years old.
2. A Fair Test analysis confirms that the Earth is billions of years old.
3. Half-life is a fundamental property of radioactive material, enabling accurate age-dating.
4. Methods exist for age-dating which are internally self-checking.
5. Efforts to overturn a massive body of work must be equally compelling.
6. Anything presented as scientific, yet clearly ignores the rules of science, is pseudoscience.


MATERIALS:
1. DEEP TIME Instructional Narrative, with information, activities, and questions: 6 pages (color preferred)
2. DEEP TIME Worksheet: 1 page 3. Key to Worksheet (1 page) (color preferred)
4. Collection of Radioisotopes: paper strips with half-life information for a sorting activity
5. Natural Radioisotopes Sequenced, with half-lives of a million years or more.
6. Overhead Transparencies (red and black-line copies) for class discussion (color preferred)
ALL THE ABOVE ITEMS AVAILABLE AS PDF FILES: CLICK HERE

TIME:
One teaching period (40-50 minutes)


TEACHING PREPARATION & STRATEGY:

INTRODUCTION TO TEACHER:
An important requirement for natural selection to produce the great diversity of life we find on Earth is a substantial amount of time. Unfortunately, there are many people who are convinced, based on an analysis of certain religious writings, that the Earth is only 6-10,000 years old. In contrast to this, a large body of work, mostly over the past half-century by physicists, geologists and astronomers, presents an overwhelming collection of physical evidence which consistently gives us a much older Earth, on the order of some 4.5 billion years old.

However, some of those preferring the "young Earth" idea have attempted to seek "proof" of their position by presenting "scientific studies" which seem to undercut the established scientific conclusions. In addition, this position is widely publicized, suggesting there is (untrue) widespread uncertainty in the science community about the validity of those ancient ages. As a result, the general public, even those not particularly committed to the Young Earth position, are often not aware of the clear status of geological ages, and the diverse body of evidence pointing to such deep time.

It turns out, upon closer scrutiny, that the "scientific evidence" for a young Earth is nothing more than selective reporting of a handful of samples which were either poorly analyzed, or notable exceptions to the huge body of data pointing to a very old Earth. Such exceptions can be variously explained in ways that do not require a young Earth solution.

This lesson should effectively and accurately inform students about the high level of confidence we have in the geological ages of an old Earth. At the same time, it should reveal an example of pseudoscience which should be part of any effort to improve science literacy and critical thinking.

STRATEGY AND PREPARATION:
1. This lesson would fit well at any point where geological time or fossils are introduced.
2. It can be started in class and completed as homework, with review and discussion the following day.
3. This lesson is probably best done in small teams (2-4), where the material can be discussed as they proceed. This is especially true for the item #15 Activity, where 34 radioisotope strips of paper must be sequenced and discussed. Multiple hands would be most useful here. In addition, the concept of isochrons may be a little tricky, and in-group discussion could be very helpful, focusing on key questions to raise in class-wide discussion.
4. Don't forget to emphasize (as examples of psuedoscience) that the extensive multiple lines of evidence from many quality studies have been ignored and/or "discredited" by some people, who use the few carefully selected "deviations" as their "evidence.". For further background, take a look at the TalkOrigins document: "The Age of the Earth" at <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#da101>.

5. Run off enough copies of the Deep Time Activity #15 Cutouts sheet so that you (or lab assistant, or students in class) can cut apart the right hand column of 17 strips, shuffle them, and place them along with the intact left hand column in an envelope or small zip-lock bag, so there will be one set (bag) for each team of 4 (or team of 2, if preferred) in your largest class. Use the intact sheet to make an overhead showing these as All Known Original Radioisotopes With Half-Lives of 1 Million Years or More, properly sequenced
6. Run off copies of the Deep Time narrative handout packet (6 pages; could be printed back-to-back and stapled), at least enough for all individuals in your largest class to use (times your total number of classes doing the lesson, if they will be taking it home). This packet can be re-used each year. Color preferred (all radioisotopes are in red type).
7. Run off copies of the Deep Time Worksheet, one per student.
8. Prepare overhead transparencies of the 2 pages of Deep Time enlarged figures, and the Sequenced Radioisotopes sheet, to be used during class discussion. Use color or color enhancement, as shown in originals.


PROCEDURE:
1. As part of your introduction to geological ages or fossils, mention that some people believe that the Earth is only several thousand years old, and have said that the million or billion year ages usually presented are not supported with good science. This has created some confusion, and since it is so important to a fully accurate understanding of the history of life, we're going to take a close look at just how the science of geological age dating, "geochronology", works. We're going to take a peek at "DEEP TIME".
2. Tell them they will be reading some background information, doing some easy activities, and answering some questions on a Worksheet. Ask them to work in teams of (2-4), so they can discuss items not clearly understood, and can help each other with the activities.
3. Point out that one of the activities requires the use of an envelope for each team, which you will distribute while they are getting started. When finished with that activity, all strips must be returned to the envelope.
4. If every team finishes in time, there will be a class discussion to clear up ideas and share perceptions. If not, each student is to finish the lesson as a homework assignment. In fact, there is an online tutorial on Virtual Age Dating which you could encourage everyone with access to the internet to try. "When you finish the tutorial, you will get a Certificate of Completion which you can show me tomorrow. We will then discuss your experience in class."
5. Hand out the Worksheets first, so everyone has one.
6. Hand out the DEEP TIME narrative packets.
7. While students are beginning their reading, distribute the envelopes, one per team.

8. When each team has completed activity #15, and answered questions 16-19, collect that team's envelope.
9. It's probably best to start the lesson so that there will be little or no time for most to finish in the period. This will allow the slower readers to complete the work at home, and anyone with access to the internet to try the online Tutorial. If you have access to a computer lab, plan to get the entire class into the Tutorial, doing at least the Isochron segment, and perhaps the Carbon 14 segment if they have time (or can do it at home) as an optional ("extra credit"?) item.
10. When the class has finished at least the DEEP TIME Worksheet, go over the questions and let them check their answers, expanding on any items which seem to raise questions. Use the overhead diagrams.
11. Provide the Tables (taken from Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth), either on the overhead, or as handouts (they are included in the materials on the PDF-access page). Below are the summaries for each Table of data (you might want different teams to figure these out, if you like, and share with each other). Even a cursory overview of these data point to a high level of agreement over an approximate age of around 4.5 billion years, based on different radiometric methods by many different people.

Table 5.6: Oldest Lunar Rocks
Average Age: 4.26 BY
Range: 4.51-3.9 BY
Mode: 4.36 BY Table 6.3: Oldest Meteorites
Average Age: 4.49 BY
Range: 4.6-4.29 BY
Mode: 4.48 Table 7.6: Earth Age Estimates
Average Age: 4.55 BY
Range: 4.75-4.43 BY
Mode: 4.53 BY


12. Try to get class consensus that the studies of Deep Time are very reliable and well-established, based on an overwhelming amount of quality science and very compelling work. The few discrepancies found can easily be attributed to factors which do not destroy the general picture, and in any case are generally very minor. Also point out that any statement to the contrary would have to explain away this huge body of evidence. You might also point out (especially if you can reference some of the alleged "science" which attempts to "disprove" the ancient Earth consensus), how either poor science was used (e.g. selecting favored data, and ignoring all the other data), or they are examples of pseudoscience.


EPILOG AND COMMENTS:
1. It is important that no religious group (or even "creationists", and certainly no students) be ridiculed for their beliefs which include the young Earth idea. Simply make the general true statement that there are many who misunderstand and may misrepresent geological dating, and the point of this exercise is to clearly demonstrate the basis and some of the techniques for measuring deep time, primarily to clear up the widely held misconceptions. If asked where the misconceptions came from, explain that lots of new ideas can be misunderstood, and if someone writes articles presenting a misconception, many people accept it without questioning, and innocently repeat the ideas to others. This is especially true if the misconception seems to confirm one's deeply held beliefs.

2. Encourage students (especially those who find it difficult to let go of the young Earth idea) to explore the issue further. Suggest they carefully read the material suggested in the references (some of it online), and perhaps prepare a report of their careful comparison of the ideas. Be sure they include a fair balance of "Young Earth" "evidence" and the ancient Earth evidence, what each side criticizes about the other, and what the counter-arguments are. Encourage the use of Fair Test questions wherever possible, along with the answers to those questions, and how they affect the conclusions.

BETA TESTING: Since this lesson has not been extensively classroom tested, if you like the idea, try it as a "Beta Tester", and please get back to us. Let us know how it goes, any problems, questions, suggestions for improving it, etc. We will share your experiences with other teachers. Contact us through the webmaster.

ASSESSMENT:
1. Of course, you can collect the Worksheets from every student, or at random, one from each team, and assign grades to all team members based on their one sample from that team. Be sure they realize this strategy beforehand, so that everyone has a chance to compare notes and understanding, and makes his/her paper an accurate example of the team's efforts. This reduces your grading load, and encourages collaboration and peer teaching.

2. Prepare a quiz, or include some questions in your next exam which reflect accurate understanding of the concepts presented in the lesson. Avoid questions about specific numbers (memory work), but rather ask questions which would only be answered correctly if a concept is properly understood.

EXTENSIONS & VARIATIONS:
1. If time allows, consider doing one or more of the other lessons on this site in the Geological/Paleontological category. A particularly compelling lesson is "Varve Dating." Students actually count sedimentary layers in a sample from an ancient lake bed, and extrapolate to the amount of time for the entire deposit to have formed. This turns out to be at least a few million years! You would need to order a set of samples, but it's worth the effort.

2. In addition, be sure to install a geological timeline in your classroom, something students can view throughout the year, and to which you can often point when talking about or showing something in prehistoric time. Some excellent ideas for this can be found in the "Time Machine" lesson.

3. We now have (2004) a nice lesson which provides a simulated rock-dating experience. Try it: "Date-a-Rock!"

REFERENCES:
The Age of the Earth: <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#dal01>
Geological Time Scale: <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/timescale.html>
Virtual Age Dating Tutorials: <http://sciencecourseware.com/VirtualDating>
Miller, Kenneth R. 1999. Finding Darwin's God. Cliff Street Books. Chapter 3
Dalrymple, G. Brent. 1991. The Age of the Earth. Stanford University Press.

ATTRIBUTION
Some of the ideas in this lesson may have been adapted from earlier, unacknowledged sources without our knowledge. If the reader believes this to be the case, please let us know, and appropriate corrections will be made. Thanks.
Lesson created by: Larry Flammer, September 2002. Based mainly on material presented in Miller's Finding Darwin's God, chapter 3. This lesson was intended primarily to serve as an introduction to the interactive online Virtual Age Dating Tutorials, but can also be used as a stand-alone
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 04:23 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
EPILOG AND COMMENTS:
1. It is important that no religious group (or even "creationists", and certainly no students) be ridiculed for their beliefs which include the young Earth idea. Simply make the general true statement that there are many who misunderstand and may misrepresent geological dating, and the point of this exercise is to clearly demonstrate the basis and some of the techniques for measuring deep time, primarily to clear up the widely held misconceptions. If asked where the misconceptions came from, explain that lots of new ideas can be misunderstood, and if someone writes articles presenting a misconception, many people accept it without questioning, and innocently repeat the ideas to others. This is especially true if the misconception seems to confirm one's deeply held beliefs.

2. Encourage students (especially those who find it difficult to let go of the young Earth idea) to explore the issue further. Suggest they carefully read the material suggested in the references (some of it online), and perhaps prepare a report of their careful comparison of the ideas. Be sure they include a fair balance of "Young Earth" "evidence" and the ancient Earth evidence, what each side criticizes about the other, and what the counter-arguments are. Encourage the use of Fair Test questions wherever possible, along with the answers to those questions, and how they affect the conclusions.


Those are important points.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 04:37 pm
I remember in high school being subjected to a lecture from creationists (I have no idea why - it was a govt school - though one of our science teachers was avowedly christian) and their chief argument that the earth couldn't be old as old as geologist said because we would be buried in 70 feet of meteorite dust, given the rates at which meteorites hit the earth....

...sigh, if you can't convince a callow 14 year old of anything except that you are grasping at straws and turning him into a lifelong theo-sceptic, then you're definitely flogging a dead horse.

I've got no (great) problem with people believing in a higher entity - my problem is treating material obviously created by humans as somehow dictated by that higher entity and 'obviously' being absolute truth - regardless of how many translations and chinese whispers it's got through.

Of course I realise that my 'obvious' is someone else's blashphemy.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:46 am
hingehead wrote:
I remember in high school being subjected to a lecture from creationists (I have no idea why - it was a govt school - though one of our science teachers was avowedly christian) and their chief argument that the earth couldn't be old as old as geologist said because we would be buried in 70 feet of meteorite dust, given the rates at which meteorites hit the earth....


Earth has processes for rolling dust over or otherwise absorbing it; the moon does not.

It is the moon which in theory should be covered by deep layers of dust and in actual fact the lander was made accordingly with snowshoe feet to deal with the deep dust it was expected to set down in. Naturally, it found no such dust layers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:33 pm
Here's a balanced view of Science and Religion. I think we all need to read it, even though it's rather long-winded. Wink http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/sctstbel.htm
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:30 pm
hingehead wrote:


I've got no (great) problem with people believing in a higher entity - my problem is treating material obviously created by humans as somehow dictated by that higher entity and 'obviously' being absolute truth - regardless of how many translations and chinese whispers it's got through.


Let me run something by you here.

The people who used to translate those stories believed they would burn in hell for all time if they f**ked up any of the translation. That's what I'd call a serious incentive to do a hell of a good job.

Moreover, between the KJ bible, Martin Luther's bible, and the Russian bible which has not changed other than for changes in the cyrillic alphabet since around 988 AD, the stories read identically in every case in which I've checked them out. Going to hell for f**king up a translation is the same in German, Russian, and English.

Now, the people who wrote those stories down wrote them in thier own language and understanding, and not ours. They would never write that John went to the bathroom; always "The Lord CAUSED John to go to the bathroom, for such and such a reason".

Therefore when you read that, you can believe that John DID go to the bathroom since those guys NEVER invented a story out of cloth. The religious INTERPRETATION, you can take or leave.

Let me give you a fabulous example. There is no way that God is going to wipe this planet over something like sin; nonetheless the story of the Noachian flood is in every nation, and every language of the antique world. It's obviously some sort of a story about a cosmic disaster which we simply got in the way of.

In fact it seems clear to me that the story of Noah in Genesis is true and that the stories the Chinese retain about people surviving on mountains and anything which could float for a year or so are equally true, and that the stories do not contradict eachother.

There is less genetic variation in the entire human race than there is in a typical group of 50 African monkeys, but of such variation as there actually is, the major genetic divide is east/west and not north/south, meaning that the white and black races are closer to eachother genetically than either is to the yellow. What that means is that the three general populations mentioned in the bible, i.e. Japhetic (Indo-European), Semetic (Jews, Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians etc.), and Hametic (dark skinned) are actually descended from Noah and his three sons as described, and that East Asians and probably American Indians as well are descended from people who survived as the Chinese and MesoAmerican records indicate.

The guys who wrote the old testament books did not have email links to China and had no way of knowing that people there had survived the flood.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 02:47 pm
WHERE THE ORIGINAL FLOOD STORY CAME FROM:

Flood Stories



Noah, also spelled NOE, the hero of the biblical Flood story in the Old Testament book of Genesis, the originator of vineyard cultivation, and, as the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the representative head of a Semitic genealogical line. A synthesis of at least three biblical source traditions, Noah is the image of the righteous man made party to a covenant with Yahweh, the God of Israel, in which nature's future protection against catastrophe is assured.

Noah appears in Genesis 5:29 as the son of Lamech and ninth in descent from Adam. In the story of the Deluge (Genesis 6:11-9:19), he is represented as the patriarch who, because of his blameless piety, was chosen by God to perpetuate the human race after his wicked contemporaries had perished in the Flood. A righteous man, Noah "found favour in the eyes of the Lord" (Genesis 6:8). Thus, when God beheld the corruption of the earth and determined to destroy it, he gave Noah divine warning of the impending disaster and made a covenant with him, promising to save him and his family. Noah was instructed to build an ark, and in accordance with God's instructions he took into the ark male and female specimens of all the world's species of animals, from which the stocks might be replenished. Consequently, according to this narrative, the entire surviving human race descended from Noah's three sons. Such a genealogy sets a universal frame within which the subsequent role of Abraham, as the father of Israel's faith, could assume its proper dimensions.

The story of the Flood has close affinities with Babylonian traditions of apocalyptic floods in which Utnapishtim plays the part corresponding to that of Noah. These mythologies are the source of such features of the biblical Flood story as the building and provisioning of the ark, its flotation, and the subsidence of the waters, as well as the part played by the human protagonist. Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh epic introduces Utnapishtim, who, like Noah, survived cosmic destruction by heeding divine instruction to build an ark.

The religious meaning of the Flood is conveyed after Noah's heroic survival. He then built an altar on which he offered burnt sacrifices to God, who then bound himself to a pact never again to curse the earth on man's account.

God then set a rainbow in the sky as a visible guarantee of his promise in this covenant.

God also renewed his commands given at creation but with two changes: man could now kill animals and eat meat, and the murder of a man would be punished by men.

Despite the tangible similarities of the Mesopotamian and biblical myths of the flood, the biblical story has a unique Hebraic perspective. In the Babylonian story the destruction of the flood was the result of a disagreement among the gods; in Genesis it resulted from the moral corruption of human history.

The primitive polytheism of the Mesopotamian versions is transformed in the biblical story into an affirmation of the omnipotence and benevolence of the one righteous God.

Again, following their survival, Utnapishtim and his wife are admitted to the circle of the immortal gods; but Noah and his family are commanded to undertake the renewal of history.

The narrative concerning Noah in Genesis 9:20-27 belongs to a different cycle, which seems to be unrelated to the Flood story. In the latter, Noah's sons are married and their wives accompany them in the ark; but in this narrative they would seem to be unmarried, nor does the shameless drunkenness of Noah accord well with the character of the pious hero of the Flood story.

Three different themes may be traced in Genesis 9:20-27: first, the passage attributes the beginnings of agriculture, and in particular the cultivation of the vine, to Noah; second, it attempts to provide, in the persons of Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, ancestors for three of the races of mankind and to account in some degree for their historic relations; and third, by its censure of Canaan, it offers a veiled justification for the later Israelite conquest and subjugation of the Canaanites.

Noah's drunkenness and the disrespect it provokes in his son Ham result in Noah's laying of a curse on Ham's son Canaan. This incident may symbolize the ethnic and social division of Palestine: the Israelites (from the line of Shem) will separate from the pre-Israelite population of Canaan (which is depicted as licentious), who will live in subjection to the Hebrews.

The symbolic figure of Noah was known in ancient Israel, before the compilation of the Pentateuch. Ezekiel (14:14, 20) speaks of him as a prototype of the righteous man who, alone among the Israelites, would be spared God's vengeance. In the New Testament, Noah is mentioned in the genealogy of the Gospel According to Luke (3:36) that delineates Jesus' descent from Adam. Jesus also uses the story of the Flood that came on a worldly generation of men "in the days of Noah" as an example of Baptism, and Noah is depicted as a preacher of repentance to the men of his time, itself a predominant theme in Jewish apocryphal and rabbinical writings.

- Encyclopedia Britannica
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 05:20 pm
gungasnake wrote:

Let me run something by you here.

The people who used to translate those stories believed they would burn in hell for all time if they f**ked up any of the translation. That's what I'd call a serious incentive to do a hell of a good job.

Moreover, between the KJ bible, Martin Luther's bible, and the Russian bible which has not changed other than for changes in the cyrillic alphabet since around 988 AD, the stories read identically in every case in which I've checked them out. Going to hell for f**king up a translation is the same in German, Russian, and English.


I don't doubt their desire to get it right (actually I do, but that's another story) but, to give an example, Michelangelo's statue of Moses has horns coming from his head - because the translation Michelangelo read said he did - later translations corrected it to 'rays coming from his head'.
If you've ever done any translating, and I'm sure you have, you will no how imprecise an art it is, a constant struggle between the literal and nuance.

Besides, hell is a christian concept, the hebrews had no notion of it.

gungasnake wrote:


Now, the people who wrote those stories down wrote them in thier own language and understanding, and not ours. They would never write that John went to the bathroom; always "The Lord CAUSED John to go to the bathroom, for such and such a reason".

Therefore when you read that, you can believe that John DID go to the bathroom since those guys NEVER invented a story out of cloth. The religious INTERPRETATION, you can take or leave.


This only adds to my point that the bible was not written by God.

gungasnake wrote:

Let me give you a fabulous example. There is no way that God is going to wipe this planet over something like sin; nonetheless the story of the Noachian flood is in every nation, and every language of the antique world. It's obviously some sort of a story about a cosmic disaster which we simply got in the way of.


So you're saying the bible is wrong? Intriguing. And it's our major source of intelligence on God's will? Have I misinterpreted your intentions all this time? You are actually an atheist? Welcome aboard.

gungasnake wrote:

In fact it seems clear to me that the story of Noah in Genesis is true and that the stories the Chinese retain about people surviving on mountains and anything which could float for a year or so are equally true, and that the stories do not contradict eachother.


The land bridge from Asia disappeared about 12000 years ago. Any tale surviving that long would be apocryphal at best. You may as well believe the Monkey God legends and the story of Tripitaka - at least they 'happened' after people could actually record events on something other than memory.
gungasnake wrote:

There is less genetic variation in the entire human race than there is in a typical group of 50 African monkeys, but of such variation as there actually is, the major genetic divide is east/west and not north/south, meaning that the white and black races are closer to eachother genetically than either is to the yellow. What that means is that the three general populations mentioned in the bible, i.e. Japhetic (Indo-European), Semetic (Jews, Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians etc.), and Hametic (dark skinned) are actually descended from Noah and his three sons as described, and that East Asians and probably American Indians as well are descended from people who survived as the Chinese and MesoAmerican records indicate.


By this logic his three sons were very different genetically - how is this possible? Same parents - the only way they could change is via evolution - oops, we can't invoke that because you started this topic to debunk it. And of course humans don't have as much genetic variation as monkeys - we're a very young species and monkeys aren't a species they're a group of species (sorry, I can't remember the zoological term), it would make more sense to compare genetic variations in Spider monkeys or Bonobos.

gungasnake wrote:

The guys who wrote the old testament books did not have email links to China and had no way of knowing that people there had survived the flood.


But they had direct access to God, didn't they? Oh, of course, you're arguing that the bible is just a collection of stories that attempt to explain how things are, not the word of the creator.

I am curious Gunga, are you really saying that the bible isn't the word of God? I'd always assumed you were Judeo-Christian and you seemed to be pushing creationism - care to talk about where exactly you are coming from?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 07:57 pm
The following is something I've seen posted on conservative forums several times. If it's right, and I'd bet that it is, then the flood was not only global, but part of some solar-system-wide disaster which ruined Mars and possibly one or two other habitable places in our system, aside from greatly increasing the volume of water on this planet:


It is a dogma of establishment science that the tale of the biblical flood is a fairytale or, at most, an aggrandized tale of some local or regional flood. That, however, does not jibe with the facts of the historical record. The flood turns out to have been part and parcel of some larger, solar-system-wide calamity.

In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice within a short space:

Gen. 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights;...

Gen. 7:10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."

These were seven days of intense light, generated by some major cosmic event within our system. The Old Testament contains one other reference to these seven days, i.e. Isaiah 30:26:

"...Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days..."

Most interpret this as meaning cramming seven days worth of light into one day. That is wrong; the reference is to the seven days prior to the flood. The reference apparently got translated out of a language which doesn't use articles. It should read "as the light of THE seven days".

It turns out, that the bible claims that Methuselah died in the year of the flood. It may not say so directly, but the ages given in Genesis 5 along with the note that the flood began in the 600'th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) add up that way:

Gen. 5:25 ->

"And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years and begat Lamech. And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years.

And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years and begat a son. And he called his name Noah...

<182 + 600 = 782 also...>

Thus we have Methusaleh dying in the year of the flood; seven days prior to the flood...

Louis Ginzburg's seven-volume "Legends of the Jews", the largest body of Midrashim ever translated into German and English to my knowledge, expands upon the laconic tales of the OT.

From Ginzburg's Legends of the Jews, Vol V, page 175:

...however, Lekah, Gen. 7.4) BR 3.6 (in the week of mourning for Methuselah, God caused the primordial light to shine).... God did not wish Methuselah to die at the same time as the sinners...

The reference is, again, to Gen. 7.4, which reads:

"For yet seven days, and I shall cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights..."

The note that "God did not wish Methusaleh to die at the same time as the sinners" indicates that Methusaleh died at pretty nearly precisely the beginning of the week prior to the flood. The week of "God causing the primordial lights to shine" was the week of intense light before the flood.

What the old books are actually telling us is that there was a stellar blowout of some sort either close to or within our own system at the time of the flood. The blowout was followed by seven days of intense light and radiation, and then the flood itself. Moreover, the signs of the impending disaster were obvious enough for at least one guy, Noah, to take extraordinary precautions.

The ancient (but historical) world knew a number of seven-day light festivals, Hanukkah, the Roman Saturnalia etc. Velikovsky claimed that all were ultimately derived from the memory of the seven days prior to the flood.

If this entire deal is a made-up story, then here is a case of the storyteller (isaiah) making extra work for himself with no possible benefit, the detail of the seven days of light being supposedly known amongst the population, and never included in the OT story directly.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 08:40 pm
MY hand is raised; I have a question. How many days and nights did Noah have to collect all the animals and put them on his HUGE boat?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:47 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Quote:

What compounds has he looked for and in what age of rocks do they first appear? Give me some explanation of what the heck he is talking about, or else this is inadmissable.
...in order for the theories about life arising out of this stuff by chance to have any shot, this soup would have been thick and consisted of tarry elements which would have impregnated any rocks they came into contact with the same way in which bituminous elements impregnated the remains of ancient forests to create coal.

Nonsense. Cite your source.

gungasnake wrote:
The evidence this would have left would be very, very obvious; nonetheless as Denton notes, there is no such evidence on this planet.

Answer my previous question about what compounds they have looked for, and in what age of rocks they do first appear.

Okay, you have shown some skill at changing the subject when cornered. Now cite your source and clarify the previous citation as requested or admit that it's all malarky.

I'll probably be waiting for the rest of my life for this one. You just dart in, make irresponsible claims, and disappear when asked to support them.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 10:01 pm
To travel half way around the world to collect all the animals, birds and insects would take one family of five - 20,000 years, and that doesn't even include the travel time. (My estimate.)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 10:19 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
To travel half way around the world to collect all the animals, birds and insects would take one family of five - 20,000 years, and that doesn't even include the travel time. (My estimate.)

No, I did it once. It wasn't that bad.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 10:34 pm
Since I never made the attempt, I'll need to rely on your opinion. How long is "it wasn't that bad?"
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 10:54 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Since I never made the attempt, I'll need to rely on your opinion. How long is "it wasn't that bad?"

It was pretty quick, really. I was surprised. Doing the bugs was kind of hard, but the larger creatures were a cinch.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 11:04 pm
Makes sense. How did you transport those elephants from Thailand, India and Africa to the boat?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Darwinian Doubts
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/28/2020 at 10:54:40