• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Not even a local flood

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
The Bible does say that after the flood, people moved east into the land of Shinar. Shinar is a good transliteration of Sumer (compare Peiking and Beijing) and Sumer was empty after the flood, but the semites lived to the NW.

As I say, I am not disputing that there may be history behind the story, and even to some extent embedded in the story. That doesn't change the nature of the story.

I think we have to have some respect for the text as it stands. Or is that just my bias as a teacher of literature?
 
Upvote 0
A

Anthony Puccetti

Guest
Already did. I think we have already mentioned Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish, Atrahasis--there are many more as well.

Show the texts so we can compare them with the story in Genesis.

Cosmos refers to "world" not just heaven. Earth is part of the cosmos.

Yes,but it is not the cosmos.

Sure there is: archeology and paleontology. We know humanity originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago and there have always been human populations in Africa ever since. We know they began spreading beyond Africa no later than 60,000 years ago, reached Australia over 30,000 years ago and began settling in the Americas around 20,000 years ago.

That account of human origins cannot be demonstrated as the real story. It is based on evidence that does not clearly amount to a particular history,and it is influenced by evolution theory,which cannot be demonstrated for the same reason.

But the earliest civilizations with major monuments can only be traced to about 10-15 thousand years ago. I don't know what date you propose for the flood, but it is a certainty that humans lived in all parts of the world at that time and most of them would not trace their ancestry back to Noah and his sons.

I would place it before the earliest civilizations.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Show the texts so we can compare them with the story in Genesis.

Look them up. They are easy to find. Just put the names in your browser.

However, you might begin with this short series on them.
Gilgamesh, Atrahasis and the Flood | The BioLogos Forum



That account of human origins cannot be demonstrated as the real story.

Oh? You are just going to wave away every human fossil and every artifact uncovered as of no moment at all? That is certainly far more demonstration than anything connected to the flood story.




It is based on evidence that does not clearly amount to a particular history,

Particular history or not, it is conclusive evidence of the geographic location of humans over the last 200,000 years. One cannot say that any part of the world other than Antarctica and perhaps some South Sea islands, was devoid of human settlement within the last 20,000 years.



and it is influenced by evolution theory,which cannot be demonstrated for the same reason.

Two misconceptions here. No, the evidence of the spread of human settlement cited refers only to our own species H. sapiens and not to any other to which we may have an evolutionary relationship--so evolutionary theory has no bearing on it.

If we were to include H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus as well as H. sapiens, the dating would go back much further. H. erectus fossils as much as 500,000 years old have been found in Europe and China as well as Africa. So have their artifacts (stone implements).

Secondly, evolutionary theory has been abundantly demonstrated as consistent with biological and geological fact.



I would place it before the earliest civilizations.


Then you either place the flood well before Noah or you set Noah and all his predecessors in Paleolithic times. However, the Biblical text would be more supportive of Neolithic or even early Bronze age time. For clear pre-flood references are made to agriculture, domestic animals, cities and metal working.

Neolithic culture is generally held to have begun around 12,000 years ago.
And, as noted earlier, there is clear evidence of human settlement through Africa, Europe, Asia and the Americas by then.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
24,684
5,556
46
Oregon
✟1,097,615.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Hi...

Just wondering how many fellow TE'ers out there have moved away from the idea of a flood all together.

I recognise it as nothing but "true myth", to borrow the term from CS Lewis.

If I understand A.N.E. cosmology, the dome was solid, and there were waters above it. When the noahic flood happened, this dome literally broke (in other words, their entire universe shattered) and there was a global flood.

I think in proper context, that the way the bible describes the flood cannot be taken literally, and a "local flood" is just a wishy washy toned down literalism... and doesn't go far enough to solve the problems we have biblically with a large scale flood.

Can we just accept it as mythology and move on from here?

One also has to consider the possibility (at least) that from creation, the story of Adam & Eve, to the building of the ark and the flood (and a starting over with Noah and his family (before this) what was happening on earth was a direct reflection of everything that was happening in heaven, that what was happening (it's possible) was a tale of not only what was happening on earth, but what was actually directly what was also happening in Heaven, and that the story of the flood and a family being preserved in the "ark", the first one, was a story of a destroying and recreation and preserving of what was directly happening in heaven, which exists right here along side of or above or beneath (however you want to look at it) but the story could have been a story of what was happening (going on) in heaven and not just the earth...

This/these "stories" could have been "tales of heaven" the first time their was a recreation of a "new" heavens, and new earth, the first time God destroyed and recreated both. During those times (of our past) heaven and earth were so intricately connected in such a way, that what was happening occuring "here" was also happening/occuring "there" or perhaps, put more appropriately what was happening "there" was also what was happening "here" and I "propose" that the story of the flood was the first time God, the Father, destroyed and recreated both (worlds) and could have been a story of the heavens, not only just the earth

Oftentimes we underestimate how intricately both our worlds are intricately "connected" so that what happens "here", happens "there" or vise-versa, and I think we all need to "keep that in mind"

This is why I believe Jesus told peter (and really "all" of his apostles/disciples) "whatever you bind on earth, will also be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will also be the thing loosed in heaven" because I believe It's wholly "true", Heaven and earth are intricately "connected, and Heaven is very much "closer" than most of us think.

I am asking you (all of you) to be "open" and not "closed" to all the possibilities, for example I am "open" to the possibility (but I am also not going to "cling" to only this one and only "possibility") that During the flood and when Noah and his family were in the ark, that I am open to the possibility that (like in a popular Star Trek episode I saw) that Noah and his family were possibly "tranported" to a totally new, different "Earth" but as I said while I am "open" to this possibility (because I believe "all" things are "possible" with God) I am not going to "cling" to that one possibility, for one, because I can think of many others, and for two, I want to keep an "open" mind to "all" possibilities, especially when it comes to God, so... Think freely and openly for yourselves, (especially when it comes to God) and do not seek to "close off" possibilities, but keep yourselves "open" is my suggestion, and advice, if anyone cares, if not, then just disregard me and what I say, but only, please "keep" an "open" mind...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sayre

Veteran
Sep 21, 2013
2,519
65
✟25,716.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
One also has to consider the possibility (at least) that from creation, the story of Adam & Eve, to the building of the ark and the flood (and a starting over with Noah and his family (before this) what was happening on earth was a direct reflection of everything that was happening in heaven, that what was happening (it's possible) was a tale of not only what was happening on earth, but what was actually directly what was also happening in Heaven, and that the story of the flood and a family being preserved in the "ark", the first one, was a story of a destroying and recreation and preserving of what was directly happening in heaven, which exists right here along side of or above or beneath (however you want to look at it) but the story could have been a story of what was happening (going on) in heaven and not just the earth...

This/these "stories" could have been "tales of heaven" the first time their was a recreation of a "new" heavens, and new earth, the first time God destroyed and recreated both. During those times (of our past) heaven and earth were so intricately connected in such a way, that what was happening occuring "here" was also happening/occuring "there" or perhaps, put more appropriately what was happening "there" was also what was happening "here" and I "propose" that the story of the flood was the first time God, the Father, destroyed and recreated both (worlds) and could have been a story of the heavens, not only just the earth

Oftentimes we underestimate how intricately both our worlds are intricately "connected" so that what happens "here", happens "there" or vise-versa, and I think we all need to "keep that in mind"

This is why I believe Jesus told peter (and really "all" of his apostles/disciples) "whatever you bind on earth, will also be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will also be the thing loosed in heaven" because I believe It's wholly "true", Heaven and earth are intricately "connected, and Heaven is very much "closer" than most of us think.

I am asking you (all of you) to be "open" and not "closed" to all the possibilities, for example I am "open" to the possibility (but I am also not going to "cling" to only this one and only "possibility") that During the flood and when Noah and his family were in the ark, that I am open to the possibility that (like in a popular Star Trek episode I saw) that Noah and his family were possibly "tranported" to a totally new, different "Earth" but as I said while I am "open" to this possibility (because I believe "all" things are "possible" with God) I am not going to "cling" to that one possibility, for one, because I can think of many others, and for two, I want to keep an "open" mind to "all" possibilities, especially when it comes to God, so... Think freely and openly for yourselves, (especially when it comes to God) and do not seek to "close off" possibilities, but keep yourselves "open" is my suggestion, and advice, if anyone cares, if not, then just disregard me and what I say, but only, please "keep" an "open" mind...

Oh gosh I've never thought from that perspective before. Interesting. I need to chew on it for a while...
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
One also has to consider the possibility (at least) that from creation, the story of Adam & Eve, to the building of the ark and the flood (and a starting over with Noah and his family (before this) what was happening on earth was a direct reflection of everything that was happening in heaven, that what was happening (it's possible) was a tale of not only what was happening on earth, but what was actually directly what was also happening in Heaven, and that the story of the flood and a family being preserved in the "ark", the first one, was a story of a destroying and recreation and preserving of what was directly happening in heaven, which exists right here along side of or above or beneath (however you want to look at it) but the story could have been a story of what was happening (going on) in heaven and not just the earth...

This/these "stories" could have been "tales of heaven" the first time their was a recreation of a "new" heavens, and new earth, the first time God destroyed and recreated both. During those times (of our past) heaven and earth were so intricately connected in such a way, that what was happening occuring "here" was also happening/occuring "there" or perhaps, put more appropriately what was happening "there" was also what was happening "here" and I "propose" that the story of the flood was the first time God, the Father, destroyed and recreated both (worlds) and could have been a story of the heavens, not only just the earth

Oftentimes we underestimate how intricately both our worlds are intricately "connected" so that what happens "here", happens "there" or vise-versa, and I think we all need to "keep that in mind"

This is why I believe Jesus told peter (and really "all" of his apostles/disciples) "whatever you bind on earth, will also be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will also be the thing loosed in heaven" because I believe It's wholly "true", Heaven and earth are intricately "connected, and Heaven is very much "closer" than most of us think.

I am asking you (all of you) to be "open" and not "closed" to all the possibilities, for example I am "open" to the possibility (but I am also not going to "cling" to only this one and only "possibility") that During the flood and when Noah and his family were in the ark, that I am open to the possibility that (like in a popular Star Trek episode I saw) that Noah and his family were possibly "tranported" to a totally new, different "Earth" but as I said while I am "open" to this possibility (because I believe "all" things are "possible" with God) I am not going to "cling" to that one possibility, for one, because I can think of many others, and for two, I want to keep an "open" mind to "all" possibilities, especially when it comes to God, so... Think freely and openly for yourselves, (especially when it comes to God) and do not seek to "close off" possibilities, but keep yourselves "open" is my suggestion, and advice, if anyone cares, if not, then just disregard me and what I say, but only, please "keep" an "open" mind...


Hmmm. So the flood could have been on a different planet altogether. That would certainly explain the lack of evidence for one (at least a global flood) on this planet.

Here's another thought. Maybe it also explains those extra-ordinary long lifetimes of the pre-flood peoples. Those were not our years, but the years of the planet Noah, et al originally came from. Due to different rotation and orbiting times, their "years" were a lot shorter than ours.

It's a neat possibility, but still the geological, fossil and genetic evidence tell against it. Too bad.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
24,684
5,556
46
Oregon
✟1,097,615.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Hmmm. So the flood could have been on a different planet altogether. That would certainly explain the lack of evidence for one (at least a global flood) on this planet.

Here's another thought. Maybe it also explains those extra-ordinary long lifetimes of the pre-flood peoples. Those were not our years, but the years of the planet Noah, et al originally came from. Due to different rotation and orbiting times, their "years" were a lot shorter than ours.

It's a neat possibility, but still the geological, fossil and genetic evidence tell against it. Too bad.

Moses wrote the first five books of the bible... I suggest to you that there is absolutely no way whatsoever, nor is their any reason at all, for him to "make it up" even considering "if" he could possibly have "made it up. So this leaves only one possibility, and that is these "stories" were designed and "told" to us for a Divine, or possibly "alien" (if you want to use that term) "purpose" and design... "It", these "stories" were designed and told to us by a "higher" "intelligence" for a specific "reason" and a "purpose"...

Now, I believe it is our "Job" as "truth seekers" to "seek out" what these "reasons" and "purposes" were/are, whether the "stories" are "literally" true, or maybe just "subjectively" true, which is what I believe, (that they are "subjectively" true) that they (these stories) alude to some kind of "higher purpose" of maybe (perhaps) unique revelations and deep understandings of our own human behavior (psychology) human nature, and to (I believe) give us a fighting chance of "becoming" something "more" than just "primates" or animals.

Anyways, that's what I believe, you can and are free to "choose" whatever you want to choose to believe...

In the popular movie the Matrix series the commander of the armies says to Morpheous, "Morpheous, not everyone believes what you believe" and Morpheous response is "My beliefs do not require them to" and that's exactly how I feel, so believe (or don't) whatever you want, but I know what I believe and I do not "require" you to agree with me in order to believe it.

I'm Just saying that there are just so, so many "open" Possibilities and I am only suggesting to you only a few that I can think of, that I just wish people would retain an "open" (and not closed) mind about things especially when it comes to God, or things that were obviously "presented" to or "infused" into our culture by a "higher" intelligence and "ponder" the reasons why...

You see, "proof" doesn't even matter at this point either way, because these stories have predestined the way in which our society would go, "evolve" for ages, and even if you, for example could somehow "prove" (And I don't believe you can, but one can most certainly "try") Somehow, "Prove" that these stories were "made-up" somehow, (And, I gaurantee that if they were, it was not by men), but my point is these stories, are a bit like "seed" codes in our DNA, that have directed when and where our society would "be" up to this point, the real question we should be asking ourselves is "why"? Why have we been brought to this "point"

I'm Going to use a Matrix analogy again, In the Movie "Matrix" the Oracle has a conversation with Neo, and she says to him, (at one point in their conversation) "Oh, and don't worry about the vase" and then Neo turns and starts to say something like "What vase?" but as he's turning around and about to finish saying it, he knocks over the vase and it falls to the floor and breaks, and He (Neo) starts to say something like "I'm sorry" but/and she tells him "I said, don't worry about it" and then she says something very relevant to our conversation here, she says "What's really going to "boggle" your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything"

And that's kinda the way it is with us, everything that's been said (in the bible for example) has directed us (to a certain degree) to this point in our history, and it's the "now" and "why" and "how" that we should "concern" ourselves with, nothing else (really) matters

My Prayers be with you all, thanks for listening, Jay.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
A

Anthony Puccetti

Guest
Oh? You are just going to wave away every human fossil and every artifact uncovered as of no moment at all? That is certainly far more demonstration than anything connected to the flood story.

The human remains and artifacts do not themselves point to the conclusions of evolution theory and archaeologists. The scientific account of origins is not something demonstrable like a law of physics,and it is not something that follows as a logical necessity from the evidence.

Particular history or not, it is conclusive evidence of the geographic location of humans over the last 200,000 years. One cannot say that any part of the world other than Antarctica and perhaps some South Sea islands, was devoid of human settlement within the last 20,000 years.

I never said that there was. But I don't take seriously any claim of dating about things from before Sumerian civilization. The further back in time human remains and artifacts are before the earliest civilizations,the less they can be dated with certainty by comparison with what is known. We have trustworthy knowledge about Sumeria,Egypt and Babylonia,which is not dependent upon speculation about scattered and fragmentary evidence,but is based upon an abundance of artifacts that clearly belong to those civilizations,and upon writings from those civilizations and about them by ancient historians.

Two misconceptions here. No, the evidence of the spread of human settlement cited refers only to our own species H. sapiens and not to any other to which we may have an evolutionary relationship--so evolutionary theory has no bearing on it.

Evolution theory includes speculation about the spread of humans throughout the world. It dovetails into human history,and archaeologists who give accounts of early human settlements sometimes take evolution theory's account of human origins as the background story. In evolution theory,their is no clear divide between the early humans and animals that are supposed to have been the ancestors of humans.

If we were to include H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus as well as H. sapiens, the dating would go back much further. H. erectus fossils as much as 500,000 years old have been found in Europe and China as well as Africa. So have their artifacts (stone implements).

They were either human or they were not.

Secondly, evolutionary theory has been abundantly demonstrated as consistent with biological and geological fact.

Its consistent with evolutionary biology,which developed under the influence of the theory. But biological facts do not logically suggest the historical claims of evolution theory. The theory only seems plausible if you think along the lines of naturalism and mechanism,and forget that reproduction is the only natural means of descent and is immediate creation of life-forms.

Then you either place the flood well before Noah or you set Noah and all his predecessors in Paleolithic times. However, the Biblical text would be more supportive of Neolithic or even early Bronze age time. For clear pre-flood references are made to agriculture, domestic animals, cities and metal working.

Neolithic culture is generally held to have begun around 12,000 years ago.
And, as noted earlier, there is clear evidence of human settlement through Africa, Europe, Asia and the Americas by then.

I would place it before Sumerian civilization. One city is mentioned in Genesis before the flood,but there is no mention of the peoples that are mentioned after the flood.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
The human remains and artifacts do not themselves point to the conclusions of evolution theory and archaeologists.

Sure they do. After all, the theory was developed in order to explain these phenomena and tested by additional phenomena. If the human remains and artifacts did not point to these conclusions the theory would not exist.


The scientific account of origins is not something demonstrable like a law of physics,and it is not something that follows as a logical necessity from the evidence.

Even the laws of physics break down in quantum reality. Science relies heavily, though not exclusively, on inductive logic, and that is always open to inductive fallacy. That is why all scientific conclusions are, in a technical sense, tentative. But in many cases the degree of uncertainty is so minimal it can, in practice, be ignored.

Consider with how much confidence you would trust a medical treatment which is 55% reliable as compared to one that is 97% reliable. Neither is a sure thing, but I expect you would be much more comfortable trying the second.

Much of science has reliability figures like that medicine and better.
I can understand being skeptical of scientific conclusions that have a lot of ambiguity in them--but don't expect me to take your skepticism seriously when you don't even know how reliable many of the conclusions are.

This is just a more sophisticated argument for paying no attention to evidence at all.



I never said that there was. But I don't take seriously any claim of dating about things from before Sumerian civilization. The further back in time human remains and artifacts are before the earliest civilizations,the less they can be dated with certainty by comparison with what is known.


In general yes, but those working in the field have some sense and some know how when it comes to estimating dates, especially where carbon and radiometric dating can be used. Vague and groundless doubts of conclusions arrived at by proper means is just more handwaving at data you don't want to believe.


We have trustworthy knowledge about Sumeria,Egypt and Babylonia,which is not dependent upon speculation about scattered and fragmentary evidence,but is based upon an abundance of artifacts that clearly belong to those civilizations,and upon writings from those civilizations and about them by ancient historians.

Most of the data on human fossils and artifacts pre-civilization is not speculation either. It is well-established by scholarship. Again, you are proposing groundless doubt merely to avoid conclusions you do not wish to accept.



Evolution theory includes speculation about the spread of humans throughout the world.


Not really. Because evolutionary theory has implications for the history of populations, there is often confusion between theory (which deals with the mechanisms of evolution) and phylogeny (which deals with the historical relationships between taxa). Biogeography studies the current and past distributions of populations and is often a help in working out the history of various groups. One of the controversies in human evolution right now is whether today's human population originated once, fairly recently in Africa and spread out from that point or whether all groups of H. erectus participated in the evolution to H. sapiens with regional variations. Biogeographic studies may help resolve that issue.

"speculation" is not an appropriate term here, since it suggests there is no evidence and no means of testing the various theories.



It dovetails into human history,and archaeologists who give accounts of early human settlements sometimes take evolution theory's account of human origins as the background story. In evolution theory,their is no clear divide between the early humans and animals that are supposed to have been the ancestors of humans.

Of course, historically, there should be a seamless transition from pre-civilized human societies and settlements to civilized societies based on cities and written communication. And why would archeologists not take the evolutionary history of humanity into account? From a scientific (which is to say evidence-based) perspective, it would be ridiculous not to.



They were either human or they were not.

Well, unless you define "human" in terms of physical characteristics (notably characteristics of crania, jaws and teeth) there is no way to say whether they were or not. Fossils do not reveal a lot about intellectual, social or spiritual characteristics and capacities. As far as I know the only species other than H. sapiens to formally bury their dead was H. neanderthalensis, which suggests a spiritual life among them. And that is pretty much the earliest evidence of anything of the sort.

So to sum up, any designation of any hominin fossil in the genus Homo as "human" is arbitrary. We can't even say for sure that early H. sapiens were "human". Nor can we say that non-sapiens hominins were not.



Its consistent with evolutionary biology,which developed under the influence of the theory. But biological facts do not logically suggest the historical claims of evolution theory.

I wouldn't say evolutionary biology developed "under the influence of the theory [of evolution]". It is more a case of seeing whether evolutionary theory makes sense of biological facts. And that it does very well--to the extent that biologist Theodosius Dobhzhansky affirmed that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Biological facts not only suggest the historical claims of evolutionary theory, they often substantiate such claims. Biological facts are the testing ground of the theory of evolution and to date the theory of evolution has passed the testing by fact over and over and over again.

If you could show any considerable discrepancy between biological, geological and archeological fact and the theory of evolution, you would have substantive grounds for tossing the theory out the window. But I expect that if you had such examples, you would present them.

And without such examples, your doubts are completely subjective and idiosyncratic. A matter of wishful thinking, not true skepticism.


The theory only seems plausible if you think along the lines of naturalism and mechanism,and forget that reproduction is the only natural means of descent and is immediate creation of life-forms.

God created nature and its mechanisms. Why should we not look to what God made for information about the world around us? You are setting up an opposition between "naturalism" and "God" which is not appropriate in Christian discourse. You are basically ceding the area of natural process to atheists as if God had nothing to do with naturalistic effects.

Of course reproduction is the only natural means of descent (which is why it took a miracle for Mary to conceive Jesus). And descent with modification is evolution.





I would place it before Sumerian civilization. One city is mentioned in Genesis before the flood,but there is no mention of the peoples that are mentioned after the flood.

Well, that would take us prior to the the traditional Ussherian date by at least 2,000 years and possibly back as far as 10,000 BC. That would still fall well within Neolithic times. And within the sort of society mentioned in Genesis 4-5 where people practised pastoral herding, agriculture, music, metallurgy and worship.

Given that time-frame a regional flood could have only a regional impact and would leave many human settlements in other parts of the world untouched.
 
Upvote 0
A

Anthony Puccetti

Guest
Sure they do. After all, the theory was developed in order to explain these phenomena and tested by additional phenomena. If the human remains and artifacts did not point to these conclusions the theory would not exist.

That does not mean the theory logically follows from examination of the phenomena. It is a naturalistic,mechanistic interpretation that assumes common descent between species that have common or similar traits,ignoring reproduction and the impossibility of proving reproductive compatibility between species millions of years ago. The theory of evolution is not logical,and does not judge justly,but judges on appearances.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't want to intrude but I thought I would mention, a local flood is actually well received among evangelical Christians, even of the fundamentalist variety. No matter how you take it, literally global or some nebulous 'true myth' the basic question is does God interdict in human affairs by means of devastating wrath. Just some food for thought, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
I don't want to intrude but I thought I would mention, a local flood is actually well received among evangelical Christians, even of the fundamentalist variety. No matter how you take it, literally global or some nebulous 'true myth' the basic question is does God interdict in human affairs by means of devastating wrath. Just some food for thought, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark


I agree, that is the important point.

I think the text as we have it is a divinely inspired story possibly with some embedded memory of an historical but local flooding event.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
That does not mean the theory logically follows from examination of the phenomena.


Yes, that is exactly what it does mean. It is just like when you find footprints in the mud under a broken window and propose the theory that this was where the burgler entered the premises. That theory logically follows from the examination of the phenomena.

So does the theory of evolution.





It is a naturalistic,mechanistic interpretation


And do you assume that God does not create and sustain natural mechanisms? If you believe that God does create and sustain natural mechanisms, what is wrong with developing knowledge about them?

Do you complain about the fact that scientists have worked out the natural mechanisms of the hydrological cycle? If not, what is the logic of complaining that scientists have worked out the natural mechanisms of introducing and sustaining biodiversity?





that assumes common descent between species that have common or similar traits,

Incorrect. Common descent is a post hoc conclusion derived from evolutionary theory, not an a priori assumption. Common descent explains not only why species have common or similar traits, but also why those commonalities are distributed across species the way they are. It explains why there are no vertebrates with six legs (or four legs + wings) for example. And why all mammals, no matter their size or the relative proportion of their neck to their body have 7 cervical vertebrae.




ignoring reproduction

Are you kiddding!?! Reproduction and inheritance are very important to understanding evolution. The idea of evolution (the concept that species change and are related by common descent) won quick acceptance in the scientific world because it explained so many otherwise incomprehensible biological facts; but Darwin's theory of evolution (how does evolution happen) did not get traction until the process of reproduction and inheritance was worked out about 50 years later.

Almost every advance in understanding evolution has come with an advance in understanding reproduction--so there is no way any study of evolution can ignore reproduction.




and the impossibility of proving reproductive compatibility between species millions of years ago.

Science doesn't aim for proof. It aims for supporting evidence. One may not be able to prove two fossil species were or were not reproductively compatible, but one can determine what sort of evidence would be left in the fossil record in each case and decide from the evidence which is the most plausible scenario.





The theory of evolution is not logical,and does not judge justly,but judges on appearances.

Your opinion carries little weight since it is clear you have little understanding of what you are talking about when it comes to evolution.

You say the theory is not logical. But can you even set out the theory of evolution correctly? I leave that for you as a challenge.
 
Upvote 0
A

Anthony Puccetti

Guest
I don't want to intrude but I thought I would mention, a local flood is actually well received among evangelical Christians, even of the fundamentalist variety. No matter how you take it, literally global or some nebulous 'true myth' the basic question is does God interdict in human affairs by means of devastating wrath. Just some food for thought, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Feel free to interrupt. It's true that these arguments boil down to a disagreement about whether or not God works punishment in the world and works extraordinary things in nature. People with faith in the Bible think he does,people with mere interest in the Bible as myth and moral guide doubt he does.
 
Upvote 0
A

Anthony Puccetti

Guest
Yes, that is exactly what it does mean. It is just like when you find footprints in the mud under a broken window and propose the theory that this was where the burgler entered the premises. That theory logically follows from the examination of the phenomena.

So does the theory of evolution.

No. The theory of evolution does not logically follow from the examination of the evidence. Unlike the example you gave of footprints in the mud,the evidence used for evolution theory - common structural and genetic traits and similar patterns of traits - does not logically point to common ancestry if there is no way to show reproductive links between species. It is reproductive lines that matter in regard to ancestry and descent. That is what is meant by ancestry and descent. Neither logic nor biology determines that the variety of species must have descended from one common ancestor or that many species with many traits in common could not have come into being separately. But evolutionists want to connect everything with everything else according to "patterns" of commonalities and similarities,so that nature appears infinitely self-creative and malleable.

And do you assume that God does not create and sustain natural mechanisms? If you believe that God does create and sustain natural mechanisms, what is wrong with developing knowledge about them?

I don't call the workings of nature "mechanisms". There are not many things in nature that can rightly be called mechanical,except bone structures and digestive systems. God does and sustain the workings of nature,and it is good to acquire knowledge of them,but the naturalism and mechanism of scientists leads them to misinterpret natural causation where the cause of effects is beyond detection,so that they attribute powers to nature or even to nothing that cannot exist.

Do you complain about the fact that scientists have worked out the natural mechanisms of the hydrological cycle? If not, what is the logic of complaining that scientists have worked out the natural mechanisms of introducing and sustaining biodiversity?

Because it is a misinterpretation of nature that attributes powers to natural selection and genetic mutation that they do not have. Those processes do not have actual creative power. They do not produce individual creatures,and so they do not produce groups or species either. It is reproduction that produces new species from prior ones,because species exist as individual creatures which come into being immediately. And every single creature is itself a species in the original sense of form or kind.

Incorrect. Common descent is a post hoc conclusion derived from evolutionary theory, not an a priori assumption. Common descent explains not only why species have common or similar traits, but also why those commonalities are distributed across species the way they are.

Common descent was assumed by scientists from Linnaeus' taxonomy,which lumps together different species based on similar traits,even before Darwin developed his theory of natural selection.

It explains why there are no vertebrates with six legs (or four legs + wings) for example. And why all mammals, no matter their size or the relative proportion of their neck to their body have 7 cervical vertebrae.

Common descent doesn't give a reasonable explanation for that. That is a question of why some things exist and others don't,which goes back to the will and creative action of God.

Are you kiddding!?! Reproduction and inheritance are very important to understanding evolution. The idea of evolution (the concept that species change and are related by common descent) won quick acceptance in the scientific world because it explained so many otherwise incomprehensible biological facts; but Darwin's theory of evolution (how does evolution happen) did not get traction until the process of reproduction and inheritance was worked out about 50 years later.

Evolutionists focus on natural selection,genetic reproduction and allele frequencies,not reproduction. When they talk about reproduction,they portray it as a mechanism of evolution,not as the very means of descent and inheritance,or descent and inheritance itself. If scientists focused on reproduction and all that it entails for the study of the origins of species,the theory of evolution would have to be converted into a theory of creation.

Almost every advance in understanding evolution has come with an advance in understanding reproduction--so there is no way any study of evolution can ignore reproduction.

Scientists do ignore it in regard to the origination of species. They ignore the fact that species consist of individual creatures that begin to exist through reproduction,and they instead focus on gradual,non-creative processes to explain how species originate.

Science doesn't aim for proof. It aims for supporting evidence.

Scientists look for both. What is taken as supporting evidence is sometimes so convincing that it is taken for proof,sometimes rightly,sometimes wrongly. Scientists don't all think alike and they are not always as modest in their work and ideas as they and the apologists for evolution theory claim.

One may not be able to prove two fossil species were or were not reproductively compatible, but one can determine what sort of evidence would be left in the fossil record in each case and decide from the evidence which is the most plausible scenario.

What sort of fossil evidence do you mean,and how would it help to determine if two species were reproductively compatible? Even if a group of species is discovered which appear to form a transitional taxonomic pattern,this would not demonstrate reproductive relatedness,and it is only plausible if reproductive compatibility between the species is assumed. But that is just what needs to be known and cannot be known. If you can demonstrate reproductive compatibility between species,you have already proven that they have a common ancestry.

Your opinion carries little weight since it is clear you have little understanding of what you are talking about when it comes to evolution.

Can you prove that? I used to get into debates with scientists on the TalkOrigins forum and they were not able to refute my objections.

You say the theory is not logical. But can you even set out the theory of evolution correctly? I leave that for you as a challenge.

The theory holds that the variety of species developed over billions of years from a common ancestor through the processes of natural selection and genetic mutation. Natural selection led to the elimination of traits that were not helpful to survival and to the preservation of traits that were,while the gradual accumulation of genetic mutations led to the appearance of new physical characteristics and to increasing divergence in populations. Changes in allele frequency in populations led to the development of distinct species.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Anthony wrote:

common structural and genetic traits and similar patterns of traits - does not logically point to common ancestry if there is no way to show reproductive links between species.

When one understands these patterns, it's clear that they do show common ancestry. For instance, one of the many pieces of evidence is the DNA evidence of the GULOP gene, in which the mutations form a nested hierarchy (proof of descent). There are many others. DNA is another of the many solid lines of evidence - it's even used to prove descent in court cases.

Just because you don't personally understand these is no reason to ignore those scientists who do.

That's why Pope Benedict was so clearly in support of comon descent and our evolution from earlier apes, as you and I have discussed before.

I used to get into debates with scientists on the TalkOrigins forum and they were not able to refute my objections.

rrrrrrrrrrrrriiiight.

Just like the black knight won here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RZ-hYPAMFQ



Papias
 
Upvote 0

greentwiga

Newbie
Nov 12, 2013
165
1
✟22,804.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Feel free to interrupt. It's true that these arguments boil down to a disagreement about whether or not God works punishment in the world and works extraordinary things in nature. People with faith in the Bible think he does,people with mere interest in the Bible as myth and moral guide doubt he does.

I find that when Christians choose one of two interpretations, but choose the wrong one, that things fall apart. They have to keep inventing miracles that God doesn't claim, and they have to deny more and more science. They get to the point of calling black white, making night into day. I go with a literal flood, and a literal Adam and Eve, but find scientific accuracy everywhere in the Bible, because I don't accept the interpretation of a world wide flood, among other bad interpretations.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Feel free to interrupt. It's true that these arguments boil down to a disagreement about whether or not God works punishment in the world and works extraordinary things in nature. People with faith in the Bible think he does,people with mere interest in the Bible as myth and moral guide doubt he does.

Actually, among Christians, that is not the focus of the disagreement at all. Both those who do and those who do not accept science, and further both those who do and those who do not accept a more-or-less strictly literal concordist view of scripture are in complete agreement with each other that God does work punishment in the world and does work extraordinary things in nature. That is not an issue at all, and if you think it is you are truly misinformed about the beliefs of Christians who read scripture somewhat differently than you.

When it comes to relating the scriptures to science and history, the disagreement is not at all about God's extraordinary works, but about God's ordinary works, about the origin of scriptural texts and about the nature of its inspiration and authority.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
No. The theory of evolution does not logically follow from the examination of the evidence. Unlike the example you gave of footprints in the mud,the evidence used for evolution theory - common structural and genetic traits and similar patterns of traits - does not logically point to common ancestry if there is no way to show reproductive links between species.


You are trying to work the logic backwards. Footprints in the mud are evidence of where the burglar broke into the house. Common structural and genetic traits are evidence of reproductive links. You don't have to prove reproductive links first and then look for commonalities. You use commonalities, and differences as well, to work out what the reproductive links had to be.




It is reproductive lines that matter in regard to ancestry and descent. That is what is meant by ancestry and descent.


No disagreement there.


Neither logic nor biology determines that the variety of species must have descended from one common ancestor or that many species with many traits in common could not have come into being separately.


Given the evidence we now have, both morphologically from living and fossil species and genetically, as well as through patterns of geographical distribution, past and present, and physiology and biochemistry, common descent is the only theory that accounts for all the evidence.



But evolutionists want to connect everything with everything else according to "patterns" of commonalities and similarities,so that nature appears infinitely self-creative and malleable.

Well, what's wrong with that? Wouldn't that be a wonderful testimony to the infinitely creative mind of God? (Or do you assume that where "nature" is, God is not?)



I don't call the workings of nature "mechanisms".

I don't particularly like that term either. I only used it because you did.
I prefer to think along the lines of processes in nature.



There are not many things in nature that can rightly be called mechanical,except bone structures and digestive systems. God does and sustain the workings of nature,and it is good to acquire knowledge of them,but the naturalism and mechanism of scientists leads them to misinterpret natural causation where the cause of effects is beyond detection,so that they attribute powers to nature or even to nothing that cannot exist.

I don't think you can put all scientists in one basket psycologically or philosophically. If they interpret "natural causation" as excluding Gods providential sustenance of nature's workings, I would agree that is a misinterpretation. But some do and some don't.





And every single creature is itself a species in the original sense of form or kind.

In the original sense? Are you going back to the Aristotelian sense? I know that up until Linneaus published his Systema Natura, it was common to use only two levels of classification: genus to refer to a collective, and species to refer to an individual member of the collective. So one might refer to "tree" as a genus and "elm tree" as a species. Of course since "elm tree" is a designation that itself refers to a plurality of trees, one can also treat "elm tree" as a genus and "slippery elm" as a species. And since this is still a collective (within the larger collectives of "elm tree" and "tree") we can continue to carry the process toward the individual until we get to "the slippery elm tree in my backyard" which is an individual and can be divided no further.

Is this what you mean when you say "every single creature is itself a species"? Like, my daughter's pet beagle is itself a species? But it is also one of the whole breed of dog called beagles, and beagles are one breed of the animal we call dogs, and dogs are part of a larger family we call wolves, etc.

What Linnaeus did was fix the term "species" to the smallest collective distinguishable from other collectives and "genus" to a grouping of "species". Then he invented new names for larger collections up to "kingdom" for all animals and for all plants. And despite some major revisions in the system, it is still the case in scientific discourse that "species" is not used of an individual creature.



Common descent was assumed by scientists from Linnaeus' taxonomy,which lumps together different species based on similar traits,even before Darwin developed his theory of natural selection.

Not assumed. Deduced. And deducing something logically from the taxonomy is coming to a conclusion, not making an a priori assumption. In a sense natural selection in itself is not related to common descent. But it does depend on "descent with modification" ( a term Darwin liked to use) and so it also leads to the conclusion of common descent. The very fact that you speak of this concept being derived "from Linnaeus taxonomy" shows the thought process goes toward common descent as a conclusion from the evidence; it is not an a priori assumption used to organize the evidence.



Common descent doesn't give a reasonable explanation for that.

Sure it does. The explanation is that these are features inherited from the ancestor of the group.


That is a question of why some things exist and others don't,which goes back to the will and creative action of God.

And that is not an explanation. We have no idea why God did not choose to create a vertebrate with six limbs. Or to vary the number of cervical vertebrae in proportion with length of neck. These things are certainly possible with direct creation that is not dependent on inheritance. But since God provided for inheritance, we can discern patterns in inheritance that make sense of these things.



Evolutionists focus on natural selection,genetic reproduction and allele frequencies,not reproduction. When they talk about reproduction,they portray it as a mechanism of evolution,not as the very means of descent and inheritance,or descent and inheritance itself. If scientists focused on reproduction and all that it entails for the study of the origins of species,the theory of evolution would have to be converted into a theory of creation.

I think you are short-changing the scientists. Inheritance and reproduction are at the heart of evolutionary theory.



Scientists do ignore it in regard to the origination of species. They ignore the fact that species consist of individual creatures that begin to exist through reproduction,and they instead focus on gradual,non-creative processes to explain how species originate.

In scientific terminology, a species is not an individual creature like my daughter's pet beagle. It is the reproducing group that this individual is part of (in this case, domestic dogs). So, it is not that they are ignoring individual creatures, but that they are using "species" with a definition common to biological science. You are not going to change that. So you will need to rephrase your objection in a way that it can be expressed in scientific terms.



Scientists look for both. What is taken as supporting evidence is sometimes so convincing that it is taken for proof,sometimes rightly,sometimes wrongly.

That is true. Any scientist will tell you that technically, all scientific conclusions are tentative, held provisionally to be true until there is solid evidence to the contrary. But, as Stephen J. Gould once pointed out, sometimes the evidence is so convincing that it is perverse to withhold such provisional consent. And it is not unknown for scientists in such cases to speak of the so-called provisional truth as proven fact. Nevertheless, scientists do know that the knowledge they discover is not based on the pristine logic of a syllogism, but on evidence which is always partial and open to revision.



What sort of fossil evidence do you mean,and how would it help to determine if two species were reproductively compatible? Even if a group of species is discovered which appear to form a transitional taxonomic pattern,this would not demonstrate reproductive relatedness,and it is only plausible if reproductive compatibility between the species is assumed. But that is just what needs to be known and cannot be known. If you can demonstrate reproductive compatibility between species,you have already proven that they have a common ancestry.

As I said above, the logic of using evidence is not the logic of a syllogism. As you are no doubt aware, a syllogism is a form of reasoning in which, if the major and minor premises are both true, the conclusion deduced from them must also be true. And the classic form is something like this:

A. All men are mortal (major premise)
B. Socrates is a man (minor premise)
C. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Now there is another kind of logic that does not lead to this kind of certainty.
We can illustrate it like this.

Given that all men are mortal, if Socrates is a man, he must be mortal.
We can show that Socrates is mortal.
Have we then shown that Socrates is a man?

No, we have not, for while it is true that all men are mortal, it is also true that all cats are mortal, so it is possible that Socrates is a cat rather than a man.

On the other hand, have we ruled out that Socrates is a man? No, it is still possible that Socrates is a man.

However, if we found evidence that Socrates is not mortal, then we have grounds for saying Socrates is neither a man nor a cat. This would falsify the original proposition "if Socrates is a man".

Science works more toward falsification than to proof, because it is often not possible to completely prove a hypothesis, but it is possible to falsify it. In the illustration above, we could not prove from his mortality whether Socrates was a man or a cat; but had we been able to prove his immortality we would falsify both his possible humanity and his possible felinity.


So the basic scientific proposition in seeking support for a hypothesis is to state it in an "if--then" framework.

"If Socrates is a man, then he must be mortal". Then we try to find out if he is mortal. If we do, we haven't proved he is a man, but we have proved that he could be. It would take additional evidence to narrow down whether he is a man or a cat or something else.

So the aim when working with fossils is not to show there is a reproductive link, but to ask "If there is a reproductive link" what logically follows as a consequence? Then the exploration begins to verify the existence of the logical consequence. The more logical consequences you can think of, and the more you can verify, the more plausible it becomes to say that there probably was a reproductive link.

So let's take a concrete example. It was first suggested nearly 100 years ago, that whales descended from terrestrial mammals of the arteriodactyl class (deer, cattle, sheep, etc.) Now, on the face of things, that sounds pretty far-fetched and there was very little evidence in its favour when the idea was first set out. However, beginning in the 1980s and on through the1990s a whole series of fossils were found that made it plausible. (And additionally, genetic evidence as well.)

Consider the changes that would have to take place for a terrestrial mammal to become a whale. Whales have a particular jaw and ear structure. They have no hind legs and they have flippers in place of forelegs. They have no nostrils, certainly not at the front of their snout. But they have a blowhole on top of their head. And these are just a few obvious morphological differences; there are many others. But if there is a reproductive link between a terrestrial creature and modern whales, what sort of evidence of that link would you expect to find in fossils that are part of that link?

Perhaps a terrestrial mammal with whale-like ear structure? (Pakicetus)
Perhaps a semi-aquatic mammal with a whale-like head and four swimming legs? (Ambulocetus)
Perhaps a swimming mammal with nostrils place midway up its face? (Aetiocetus)
Perhaps a whale with vestigial hind legs? (Basilosaurus)

As you see, many of the things we would expect from a reproductive link have actually been found--and again this is only a small sampling.

So we can say certainly that a reproductive link between a land-dwelling animal like Pakicetus and a modern whale is plausible. And the more such evidence we find, the more probable it is that the reproductive link is real.

We can also say it is plausible and probable because we have no other solid explanation for why these forms existed in the chronological order that they did.

So it is fair to ask, if a reproductive link is not the explanation of these forms, what is?




Can you prove that? I used to get into debates with scientists on the TalkOrigins forum and they were not able to refute my objections.

I can only go by what I see here. What I see here includes a non-standard definition of species. Possibly lack of acquaintance with the logic of science when evaluating evidence and a slightly outdated concept of evolution.



The theory holds that the variety of species developed over billions of years from a common ancestor through the processes of natural selection and genetic mutation. Natural selection led to the elimination of traits that were not helpful to survival and to the preservation of traits that were,while the gradual accumulation of genetic mutations led to the appearance of new physical characteristics and to increasing divergence in populations. Changes in allele frequency in populations led to the development of distinct species.

This is good. Much better quality than I usually see when I present this challenge. You have avoided practically all the usual gobbledygook. The last half is a bit weak, and to rectify it, you would need to understand (properly) what Eldredge and Gould were getting at with "punctuated equilbrium". Gradual accumulation of genetic mutations does lead to the appearance of new physical characteristics, but not necessarily to divergence. Divergence in populations requires separation, isolation of one part of the population from another which leads to a restriction of genetic sharing between the two groups. It is only in the context of closing off genetic sharing that the two groups can accumulate a different set of mutations, and so become differentiated into different species. So changes in allele frequency is only part of the explanation leading to distinct species. One needs these changes to occur in a scenario of isolated populations.
 
Upvote 0