More flood questions...

[Split Rock]

ICR can take a hike.
.

Then why do you quote one of the founders of the ICR, Henry Morris, here so often?

 

[Mike Elphick]

Maybe Noah was a real person.

In other words -- you don't know.

No, I don't. Although I think it quite likely, I can't imagine how anybody can know for sure.

Who knows?

I do.

Ok . I find it amusing how creationists seem to KNOW everything and then criticise us poor evillusionists when we say we DON'T know.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

What a long post!

Only an atheist could call one paragraph a "long post."

<staff edit>

According to you, 90% of the world is childish and all these childish civilizations conspired with one another using time machines.

 

[Mike Elphick]

What a long post!

Only an atheist could call one paragraph a "long post."

More like twenty-five paragraphs! And I don't describe myself as an atheist. Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I don't describe myself as an atheist. Thanks.

Right.

You're a "friend of Christianity" and "not anti-religion".

Yet you "oppose Young Earth Creationism, not only because it is based on a fabric of lies and misinformation, but because it is a threat to all hard-won human knowledge".

Not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Theosophy, Mormonism, etc.

It just happens to be YECs you see fit to advertise against.

 

[Split Rock]

Right.

You're a "friend of Christianity" and "not anti-religion".

Yet you "oppose Young Earth Creationism, not only because it is based on a fabric of lies and misinformation, but because it is a threat to all hard-won human knowledge".

Not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Theosophy, Mormonism, etc.

It just happens to be YECs you see fit to advertise against.

Most of us are opposed to creationism (not just YEC) because it is indeed anti-science. This includes Hindu creationists or any other kind, as well. But then.... you already knew all that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most of us are opposed to creationism (not just YEC) because it is indeed anti-science. This includes Hindu creationists or any other kind, as well. But then.... you already knew all that.

Yes -- I already knew that -- and almost change it to "gap theorists, day-agers and OECs"; but didn't.

And I disagree with your term "anti-science".

It is "no science" -- or, as we like to call it -- a miracle.

Miracles circumvent science, not fight it.

 

[rockaction]

ICR can take a hike.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is Satan's cheap imitation for what really happened -- we call it Diabolical Plagiarism.

Has it occurred to you (or ICR) that a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh can indeed be older than a copy of Genesis 6-9 -- even though Genesis 6-9 was written before the Epic of Gilgamesh?

In addition, notice that Shem -- Noah's son -- lived right up to the time that Jacob was born.

Thus he provided eyewitness testimony from someone who was actually there.

I've said this before, and it bears repeating: I'm sure Shem and Nimrod had some real knock-down-drag-out arguments over Nimrod's trash.

First of all, it wasn't Gilgamesh himself that is the Noah character. It was a character called Utnapishtim (who is called Atra-Hasis in a different epic), who is warned about an inevitable flood and takes his family and a bunch of animals onto a big boat and they ride the tide and survive.

Secondly, Gilgamesh is WAY older than the Bible. The story is set in ~2600 BC, and we know Gilgamesh actually existed (more than we can say about Moses!) Our oldest copies are from ~2000 BC. The earliest parts of the Torah were probably written around 900 BC. Even then, the traditional view is that Moses wrote them ~1400 BC, which sets him much later than Gilgamesh!

Thirdly, if you take a big dump on Gilgamesh, you prove that you hate literature as much as you hate science. Gilgamesh is the oldest epic story man ever wrote down, and it's quite frankly one of the most timeless stories ever told. It tells us a lot about our ancestors, and shows how very similar we are to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Secondly, Gilgamesh is WAY older than the Bible.

Okay -- here's usually where I say something, then ask an excellent question and get no answer.

But I'll try.

Scenario:

1. BC2448: The Flood occurs as written in the Bible, Noah records it.
2. BC2347: Nimrod, Noah's great-grandson, builds Sumeria.
3. BC2300: The Epic of Gilgamesh is written.
4. BC2000: The Epic of Gilgamesh is re-written for preservation.
5. BC1500: Moses edits Genesis with redactions.

Question: which story is older? the Flood or the Epic?

(Please answer this w/o changing any of my words.)

 

[Split Rock]

And I disagree with your term "anti-science".

It is "no science" -- or, as we like to call it -- a miracle.

Miracles circumvent science, not fight it.

The creationist position is anti-science, but not because they believe in miracles.

 

[AV1611VET]

The creationist position is anti-science, but not because they believe in miracles.

Sure it is --

 

[Mike Elphick]

And I don't describe myself as an atheist. Thanks.

Right.

You're a "friend of Christianity" and "not anti-religion".

Yet you "oppose Young Earth Creationism, not only because it is based on a fabric of lies and misinformation, but because it is a threat to all hard-won human knowledge".

Not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Theosophy, Mormonism, etc.

First of all AV, I have tried to be honest in my personal description. I explain why I am a friend of Christianity — I was brought up that way, and maybe it's because it wasn't thrust down my throat, or expected of me, or maybe because I never believed it, that I did not rebel against it. However, In my opinion YECism is not what I would call Christianity by a long stretch — not the sort of Christianity I was brought up with and light years away from the beliefs of my Christian wife and daughter. Christianity is not about dinosaurs, fossils and mutations. And neither is it about being consumed by some ancient common ancestry of guilt, as YECists seem to be.

Despite what they say, YECists don't hate science — they actually admire it and are jealous of what it has achieved and the respect science is given. That explains why you get 'Scientific Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' and why YECism makes out it is some sort of 'science' discipline and does its utmost to appear 'scientific'. Otherwise they might just as well ignore science all together and go along with the supernatural.

The problem with YECists lies in their attempts at reconciling science with what they consider absolute biblical authority, which does not discount the supernatural. Their 'science' then turns into pseudoscience. Once you go down that route and a false 'scientific' possibility has been invented, even though highly unlikely, so long as it is possible it becomes accepted and before long, in the YECist mind, it soon becomes a 'probability'. Because, by definition, there are inadequacies in the initial explanation further 'possibilities' have to be sought. These too have their flaws requiring additional embellishments. Eventually, it is not just one piece of false science or a single 'possibility', but a massive web of them that eventually find their way into creationist dogma.

A classical example of this, which is packed with a web of 'possibilities' (and to keep this post on topic), is John Woodmorappe's work Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, which is now widely accepted by YECists as part of their belief system. One 'possibility' here is the statement that some animals were trained to defecate and urinate into buckets on command!

Having been a scientist for a large part of my life, I find this sort of stuff an insult — not just an insult to me personally, but an insult to other scientists and an insult to science in general. What is worrying is their very well financed attack on what they call "philosophical materialism" (Henry Morris) and "scientific materialism" (Wedge Document). In other words, use science where it suits, but throw science out when it doesn't — or more specifically, contort real science into lies and deceptions to achieve their aims.

Regarding other religions, Hinduism does not use science to support its several creation stories, some of which are compatible with evolution, neither is it an issue for Buddhism. Although Mormons don't generally believe in evolution, many Latter-day Saints recognize the possibility that God could have used evolutionary mechanisms to bring the earth to its present state. The church has no official view on evolution.

It just happens to be YECs you see fit to advertise against.

Yes, for the reasons given. I'm equally against fundamentalist Islamic creationists like Harun Yahya. I don't find other types of creationism nearly so objectionable.

I don't see why any of this should upset you.

 

[AV1611VET]

First of all AV, I have tried to be honest in my personal description.

Fair enough, Mike.

You made a long post here and sounded quite sincere, so I'm not going to say anything more.

You sound like a reasonable man who has respect for your wife and daughter's beliefs, and I certainly cannot fault you for that.

I wish you would stop being a 'friend of Christianity' and be a Christian yourself, though -- (if you aren't already).

 

[rockaction]

Okay -- here's usually where I say something, then ask an excellent question and get no answer.

But I'll try.

Scenario:

1. BC2448: The Flood occurs as written in the Bible, Noah records it.
2. BC2347: Nimrod, Noah's great-grandson, builds Sumeria.
3. BC2300: The Epic of Gilgamesh is written.
4. BC2000: The Epic of Gilgamesh is re-written for preservation.
5. BC1500: Moses edits Genesis with redactions.

Question: which story is older? the Flood or the Epic?

(Please answer this w/o changing any of my words.)

Gilgamesh lived in 2500 BC. He was told the flood story by a different man, so the flood story happened before that, ~2600 BC. So the Gilgamesh story is older.

And by Sumeria I assume you mean Sumer, which have evidence that it existed during 5000 BC.

 

[Split Rock]

Sure it is --

I'll just quote your by-line.
SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll just quote your by-line.
SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Anyone can quote it -- knowing when to quote it is what counts.

 

[Split Rock]

Anyone can quote it -- knowing when to quote it is what counts.

Despite your attempts to indicate differently, the by-line Speaks for Itself.

 

[Doveaman]

The creationist position is anti-science,

Then I'm not a creationists.

but not because they believe in miracles.

Is it scientific for a man to rise from the dead after being dead for three days? Is this idea anti-science?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Is it scientific for a man to rise from the dead after being dead for three days?

No. Reality and actual human experience are not scientific, they are creationist.

Is this idea anti-science?

And yes, reality is anti-science.

Pronounced dead, man recovers - TODAY People - People: Tales of survival - TODAYshow.com

Pronounced dead, man takes &#8216;miraculous&#8217; turn

Doctors can&#8217;t explain why 21-year-old Zack Dunlap recovered from accident

Man, 76, Who Was Pronounced Dead, Found Alive in Coffin - Incredible Health - FOXNews.com

A Polish beekeeper who suffered a heart attack after being stung was found alive in his coffin, The Times of London reported.

Josef Guzy, 76, collapsed and fell unconscious after the insect attack earlier in the day and had been pronounced dead at the scene by a doctor.

It was only when the funeral director reached into the coffin for the last time, in order to retrieve a necklace requested by Guzy's grieving would-be widow, that he detected a faint pulse.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-baby-son-alive-after-opening-his-coffin.html

Paraguayan man finds his baby son alive after opening his coffin

Paraguayans have hailed a "miracle" after a grieving father opened his baby son's coffin and discovered that the infant was still alive

 

[Mike Elphick]

Because instant annihilation would have all those who drowned in the Flood going to Hell w/o a chance to make what we call a "deathbed confession".

In those days Hell was simply a pit...

What's the Lake of Fire then?

The "Lake of Fire" doesn't appear in the Bible until Revelation 19 and 20. In the OT, Sheol was the abode of the dead:-

The Afterlife According to the Hebrew Scriptures

Sheol is one word sometimes translated as "Hell" in the Old Testament. In Hebrew, this word is a proper noun, that is a name or title, so properly it should not have been translated but simply transliterated, as is done with other names. The literal meaning of this Hebrew word is simply "subterranean retreat". Sheol was not understood as a physical place since it exists in the spirit world, but it is a spiritual "place" associated with dead people. It was understood that when a person dies, their body is buried, and their soul goes to reside in Sheol. That is the fate for all people who die, both the righteous and the wicked. According to Hebrew scholars, anything more detailed is conjecture and speculation.

Sheol was translated as "hell" in a number of places where it was indicating a place for the wicked, which is consistent with western thought. But it was also translated as "grave" and as "pit" in a number of other places where it was clearly not a place of the wicked. Yet there are other Hebrew words for grave and pit, so why did it not occur to the translators that if the author wanted to mean pit or grave they would have used them? It can been seen that where Sheol fit the translators' idea of hell as a place of torment, they interpreted it one way, as hell, and simply used the word another way if it did not, confusing those who are trying to understand the Scriptures in translation.
Heaven and Hell in the Afterlife​

The Christian concept of hell is very different:-

In most Christian beliefs, such as the Catholic Church, most Protestant churches (such as the Baptists, Episcopalians, etc.), and Greek Orthodox churches, Hell is taught as the final destiny of those who have not been found worthy after they have passed through the great white throne of judgment, where they will be punished for sin and permanently separated from God after the general resurrection and last judgment.
Hell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (My bolding)​

In OT days, neither instant annihilation nor death by drowning would have involved judgement or punishment. So why was God so cruel?

lighter fluid?

Can you still buy such stuff?