PDA

View Full Version : Grand Canyon Created by Noah's Flood


NewChief
10-20-2004, 01:16 PM
Nice one!

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/printer_14313.shtml
Sci/Tech
Park Service Sticks With Biblical Explanation For Grand Canyon
Author: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
Published on Oct 14, 2004, 02:00



The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Despite telling members of Congress and the public that the legality and appropriateness of the National Park Service offering a creationist book for sale at Grand Canyon museums and bookstores was “under review at the national level by several offices,” no such review took place, according to materials obtained by PEER under the Freedom of Information Act. Instead, the real agency position was expressed by NPS spokesperson Elaine Sevy as quoted in the Baptist Press News:

“Now that the book has become quite popular, we don’t want to remove it.”

In August of 2003, Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, by Tom Vail, a book explaining how the park’s central feature developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters that there would be a high-level policy review, distributing talking points stating: “We hope to have a final decision in February [2004].” In fact, the promised review never occurred –

· In late February, Barna crafted a draft letter to concerned members of Congress stating: “We hope to have a final decision on the book in March 2004.” That draft was rewritten in June and finally sent out to Congressional representatives with no completion date for the review at all;

· NPS Headquarters did not respond to a January 25th memo from its own top geologists charging that sale of the book violated agency policies and undercut its scientific education programs;

· The Park Service ignored a letter of protest signed by the presidents of seven scientific societies on December 16, 2003.

“Promoting creationism in our national parks is just as wrong as promoting it in our public schools,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, “If the Bush Administration is using public resources for pandering to Christian fundamentalists, it should at least have the decency to tell the truth about it.”

The creationist book is not the only religious controversy at Grand Canyon National Park. One week prior to the approved sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, NPS Deputy Director Donald Murphy ordered that bronze plaques bearing Psalm verses be returned and reinstalled at canyon overlooks. Superintendent Alston had removed the bronze plaques on legal advice from Interior Department solicitors. Murphy also wrote a letter of apology to the plaques’ sponsors, the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. PEER has collected other instances of what it calls the Bush Administration’s “Faith-Based Parks” agenda.

© Copyright 2004 by YubaNet.com
Send your letters to the editor to news@yubanet.com

Saulbadguy
10-20-2004, 01:18 PM
Geez, when are they gonna fill that in?

Radar Chief
10-20-2004, 01:47 PM
The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).


You mean it wasn’t? Thanks buzz kill, next you’re gonna tell me that the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause don’t exist.

Cochise
10-20-2004, 03:29 PM
the legality and appropriateness of the National Park Service offering a creationist book for sale at Grand Canyon museums and bookstores was “under review at the national level by several offices,”


Give me a break. Is this the level of micro-management the government has to perform to keep some crybaby from complaining?

KC Jones
10-20-2004, 05:04 PM
That's a hoot - everybody knows most creationists don't know how to read.

SECTION11
10-20-2004, 06:03 PM
Retarded. Utterly retarded.

Brock
10-20-2004, 06:07 PM
That's kinda funny.

Rain Man
10-20-2004, 06:43 PM
When are they going to acknowledge that it's a footprint made by the Great Bear?

Calcountry
10-20-2004, 07:12 PM
I don't care if it RAINS or FREEZES ,
I'm SAFE in the arms of Jesus.

Bowser
10-20-2004, 07:15 PM
All I remember about the Grand Canyon is that Clark Griswald wasn't all that impressed.

Cochise
10-20-2004, 07:19 PM
All I remember about the Grand Canyon is that Clark Griswald wasn't all that impressed.

ROFL

NewChief
10-20-2004, 07:22 PM
When are they going to acknowledge that it's a footprint made by the Great Bear?

My ass man. Everyone knows it was Paul Bunyan and his Big Blue Ox, Babe, that created the Grand Canyon....or was it Pecos Pete? :hmmm:

Chieficus
10-20-2004, 08:23 PM
Probably take some crap from some who don't hold to the idea of Biblical inerrancy...but what the heck...

Coming from the perspective of having a background that is heavily laced with science (BS-Meteorology), I must say that I've never been overly impressed with the interpretation of the evidence coming from many in my degree's sister field (geology). Facts are facts, but the assumptions that drive the mind examining the facts are many, and when it comes down to the "nitty-gritty" of the age of the rock layers, there isn't much support for what is said.

One could easily make the case for both an event such as the Biblical flood or the gradual evolution of errosion. It really has less to do with the objective facts and more to do with the subjective interpretation driven by the presuppositions of one's noetic system--something that none of us can escape.

As long as the book is of quality scholarship, there should be no issue with it being on the shelf. Except for insecure people who can't stand the thought of having their worldview challenged.

Hel'n
10-20-2004, 08:29 PM
This is what really happened...

tiptap
10-20-2004, 10:59 PM
Probably take some crap from some who don't hold to the idea of Biblical inerrancy...but what the heck...

Coming from the perspective of having a background that is heavily laced with science (BS-Meteorology), I must say that I've never been overly impressed with the interpretation of the evidence coming from many in my degree's sister field (geology). Facts are facts, but the assumptions that drive the mind examining the facts are many, and when it comes down to the "nitty-gritty" of the age of the rock layers, there isn't much support for what is said.

One could easily make the case for both an event such as the Biblical flood or the gradual evolution of errosion. It really has less to do with the objective facts and more to do with the subjective interpretation driven by the presuppositions of one's noetic system--something that none of us can escape.

As long as the book is of quality scholarship, there should be no issue with it being on the shelf. Except for insecure people who can't stand the thought of having their worldview challenged.

Well as a meteorologist you should be able to explain where all the water came from to cover MT Everest (chemistry conservation of mass). What would be the feet per hour of percipitation to get to that height in 40 days? That would be how much mass falling per minute (I estimate 30lbs of water PER MINUTE over every square foot)? And where did that water go to after the rains subsided? Did the Grand Canyon come in the initial downpour or when the waters receded? And how did the waters separate animals of the same density so that we find only trilobytes at only the lower levels? Why is the layer of rock you stand on looking at the north ridge slip under the Colorado river just before the Glen Canyon Dam with tons of layers above it. Shouldn't it be getting buried as you go down stream as the Flood carries debris downstream?

It isn't just the geology that makes the claims of the literal interpretation difficult.

Cochise
10-20-2004, 11:08 PM
One could easily make the case for both an event such as the Biblical flood or the gradual evolution of errosion. It really has less to do with the objective facts and more to do with the subjective interpretation driven by the presuppositions of one's noetic system--something that none of us can escape.


The Biblical flood is actually a matter of some debate in Creationist circles. I have heard convincing arguments made both that the flood was indeed a global flood, or that it was a localized flood. Kind of interesting stuff.

Lomax
10-21-2004, 12:02 AM
Anyone asking questions and looking for answers can find solid scientific answers on this site (search for Grand Canyon. There are 40 articles.):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/?aigHomeCountry=United+States&aigEvents=United+States&aigBookstore=United+States

If your questions are rhetorical and your worldview is set against a Biblical approach, don't waste your time on the site.

listopencil
10-21-2004, 01:16 AM
It's true. The Great Flood did create the Grand canyon. And the tops of my feet are hairy because my great-grandfather was a Yeti. Or a Hobbit. I'm not sure which.

2bikemike
10-21-2004, 01:30 AM
There is some good stuff on this site if your looking for Creation based information. http://www.icr.org/

Earthling
10-21-2004, 01:37 AM
I guess there is only one Supreme Being that really knows if the great flood created the grand canyon or not...and I'm not talking. :p

Pants
10-21-2004, 01:59 AM
Fvck The Creationists, by the Grand Master MC Hawking:

Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!

Fvck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.


Fvck, fvck, fvck,
fvck the Creationists.

Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.

Fvck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.

Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fvck them all motherfvckers.
Fvcking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fvck that!
If them superstitious motherfvckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fvcking creationists.
Fvck them.

Stephen Hawking knows where it's at. Can't argue with him.

Boozer
10-21-2004, 08:27 AM
Anyone asking questions and looking for answers can find solid scientific answers on this site (search for Grand Canyon. There are 40 articles.):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/?aigHomeCountry=United+States&aigEvents=United+States&aigBookstore=United+States

If your questions are rhetorical and your worldview is set against a Biblical approach, don't waste your time on the site.

Wow...believing the logic of that site is a much bigger leap of faith than believing in God is.

Boozer
10-21-2004, 08:32 AM
hey captured sonar images of a ‘gentle berm and a sandbar submerged undisturbed for thousands of years on the sea floor.’ Then using radiocarbon dating, they determined that the remains of the freshwater mollusks found on this submerged beach were 7,500 years old and that the saltwater species were only 6,900 years old. (By the way, radiocarbon is not reliable in giving accurate dates going back thousands of years. AiG believes that Noah's Flood should be dated to about 4,300 years ago.)

Wow...using radiocarbon dating when it lends credence to your story, and then slapping it down again so as to keep the whole house of cars from falling down.

Cochise
10-21-2004, 08:32 AM
Stephen Hawking knows where it's at. Can't argue with him.

Wow, if there was any doubt that you were on the same level as Gunther_Fan and Gochiefs around here, you sure have obliterated that the past couple of days.

Chieficus
10-21-2004, 11:01 AM
Well as a meteorologist you should be able to explain where all the water came from to cover MT Everest (chemistry conservation of mass). What would be the feet per hour of percipitation to get to that height in 40 days? That would be how much mass falling per minute (I estimate 30lbs of water PER MINUTE over every square foot)? And where did that water go to after the rains subsided? Did the Grand Canyon come in the initial downpour or when the waters receded? And how did the waters separate animals of the same density so that we find only trilobytes at only the lower levels? Why is the layer of rock you stand on looking at the north ridge slip under the Colorado river just before the Glen Canyon Dam with tons of layers above it. Shouldn't it be getting buried as you go down stream as the Flood carries debris downstream?

It isn't just the geology that makes the claims of the literal interpretation difficult.

Like I said in my previous post, it comes down to your assumptions.

For your case: 1) You assume that the geological landscape of the earth was similar before the flood event and after it. 2) You assume all the water came from the sky. 3) This is what I would call a fairly accurate guess based upon other posts of yours as well: You assume that God (I'm not sure if you even think a god exists) has no interaction with His creation.

1) Localized floods can be harsh on geological landscapes. For example, there have been much smaller canyons that formed in areas of easily erroded rock in an extremely short period of time due to flooding. We've also seen the effect of say the '93 and '95 floods changing farm land into a wetlands area with its own independent lake around the I-70 bridge near Columbia, MO. And of course, there's the reshaping of land caused by mudslides and other events. If this stuff can happen with localized flooding, the shaping effects that would occur with a globalized flood truly rest beyond our comprehension.

2) Re-read the Bible story some time, it doesn't say that all the water fell from the sky.

3) The question of if God exists or doesn't exist is a different discussion. However, the flood argument assumes He does exist. If God exists, and if God created the universe and if God flooded the earth. God is also just as capable of taking care of excess water. He could remove it, deepen the seabeds, reshape the landscape--it's quite up to Him. (Psalms 104:5-9 plays somewhat interestingly into this)

Your point about fossiles is a bit nonsensical. After all it leaves out such issues as: 1) What caused the particular fossilizations and when did it occur? 2) What organisms existed in the area of the fossilization? 3) What are the survivial adaptations the particular species possess? And 4) What are the presuppositions concerning the age of the rocks in various locations?

The timing of the creation of the canyon (at the start of the flood or at the end) doesn't really matter that much to the argument. If anything, the geology of the canyon would do more to answer the question than asking the question would do to say anything about the argument.

And your last sentence...I'm not sure what you're saying. I've read it several times to try to figure it out and I may have a clue as to what you mean, but I'm not sure. But if you're saying what I think you're saying, then you're making certain assumptions about the flood argument that might not be valid concerning the timing of the canyon's creation and the shape of the geological landscape before the flood.

Wow...using radiocarbon dating when it lends credence to your story, and then slapping it down again so as to keep the whole house of cars from falling down.

Dang. I hate it when my house of cars falls... ROFL

Anyway...radiocarbon dating tends to be one of those things that is as accurate or inaccurate as the scientists who use it want it to be. Heck, just pick up a variety of text books that discuss the subject consulting different scientists and you get a wide range of answers of how reliable it is. No matter which side of any debate we want to argue, radiocarbon dating can work as a good guide but it certainly should not be the basket we want to put all our eggs in.

NewChief
10-21-2004, 11:21 AM
2) Re-read the Bible story some time, it doesn't say that all the water fell from the sky.



Care to offer up a scientific explanation of this one that jibes with your meteorological degree?

Cochise
10-21-2004, 11:24 AM
Care to offer up a scientific explanation of this one that jibes with your meteorological degree?

It goes back to whether you think there is a God or not. It's not about how difficult or improbable an event happening is. If there is one, then he is big enough to make these things happen. If there isn't one, the discussion is moot anyway.

NewChief
10-21-2004, 11:27 AM
It goes back to whether you think there is a God or not. It's not about how difficult or improbable an event happening is. If there is one, then he is big enough to make these things happen. If there isn't one, the discussion is moot anyway.

That's my point, exactly. He's trying to say, "See, there's scientific evidence to support this." But eventually the "science" breaks down and believers have to say that, "It was a supernatural act" which means you can throw scientific evidence out the door.

If it's a supernatural act then you can just say that god dug his big toe across the earth and created the GC. There's no reason to try to get all pseudo-scientific and pick and choose your science to try to lend credibility to your argument.

Pants
10-21-2004, 11:44 AM
Wow, if there was any doubt that you were on the same level as Gunther_Fan and Gochiefs around here, you sure have obliterated that the past couple of days.

I take it you never heard MC Hawking. I recommend it, it's hilarious.

Oh and get the sand outta your vagina and develop a sense of humor.

Cochise
10-21-2004, 11:46 AM
That's my point, exactly. He's trying to say, "See, there's scientific evidence to support this." But eventually the "science" breaks down and believers have to say that, "It was a supernatural act" which means you can throw scientific evidence out the door.

If it's a supernatural act then you can just say that god dug his big toe across the earth and created the GC. There's no reason to try to get all pseudo-scientific and pick and choose your science to try to lend credibility to your argument.

That's not what I am saying.

If there is One, then He could make those things happen, BUT the fact that they were created supernaturally doesn't mean that there would be no physical evidence left behind. In fact, the very act of creating something out of nothing would by definition leave physical evidence behind - the 'something'. Creation by definition leaves something created behind.

I think it's foolish to assume either in the absolute - I think it's foolhardy to assume that if God were to act, there would be no physical evidence. And I also think that it's foolish to say that he couldn't cover his tracks if he wanted to. The baseline concept here is that he can do whatever he wants and we may or may not be left a way to find out how or why.

I don't think it's illogical at all to say that 'I think the flood caused the Grand Canyon, and here are some physical evidences that could point to it.' and I don't think that it would be wrong to say that it may have just always been there. I don't think that we can equivocate on the issue, but I don't think it should be ruled out either.

Cochise
10-21-2004, 11:48 AM
I take it you never heard MC Hawking. I recommend it, it's hilarious.

Oh and get the sand outta your vagina and develop a sense of humor.

"develop a sense of humor" - This from the guy who was at defcon 5 last night in the gochiefs thread.

Pants
10-21-2004, 11:53 AM
"develop a sense of humor" - This from the guy who was at defcon 5 last night in the gochiefs thread.

WTF are you talking about, it was a legit argument.

Anyway, back on topic.

As I see it - evolution is the process of God creating us. To us it's millions of years to Him it's a blink of an eye. Creationists dismiss evolution, that's why I disagree with them.

Cochise
10-21-2004, 11:55 AM
Creationists dismiss evolution, that's why I disagree with them.

I think the correct characterization is that they dismiss macroevolution, and not things like adaptation.

Chiefnj
10-21-2004, 11:55 AM
I don't really have a problem with the park selling the book. I'm sure they sell fictional children's books where little bears or other wildlife creatures talk to one another. No big difference. It would be fair to sell it as long as they give other books an opportunity as well; for example a native american book explaining the creation of the canyon.

Pants
10-21-2004, 11:58 AM
I think the correct characterization is that they dismiss macroevolution, and not things like adaptation.

That's my point, macroevolution was (and still is) God creating us and other animals.

Eventually he will be done, and all the "republican/conservative" humans will evolve to the be democart/liberals (I kid.)

Chieficus
10-21-2004, 03:47 PM
Care to offer up a scientific explanation of this one that jibes with your meteorological degree?

How about a common-sense explanation of how the water came from places other than the sky...

There's a nice little river down in southern Missouri, maybe you've heard about it being from Arkansas, its called the Current River, great river to take your family canoeing and camping and stuff...fridged water, though...because its a river fed mostly from under ground springs. The water thus, comes up and from some place other than the sky.

That's my point, exactly. He's trying to say, "See, there's scientific evidence to support this." But eventually the "science" breaks down and believers have to say that, "It was a supernatural act" which means you can throw scientific evidence out the door.

If you're crafty enough you can get scientific evidence to support just about anything you darn well want. And in all fields the "science" breaks down at some point. What you're then left with is a combination of assumptions and interpretation. And the validity of those aren't based on the evidence itself.

Take evolution, for example. One of its major flaws is that it uses the microevolution we see occur around us all the time, then it takes those small changes and interpolates out to the big changes, because evidence for macoevolution is lacking. In fact, by the very definition of macro-evolution (basic: changes that occur over a larger period of time, or if you go with punctuated equillibrium, changes that occur over a geologically small period of time, but is still rather long compared to the human lifespan), it falls outside of the scientific method because we can't observe it.

And the fossile record isn't very telling, and we're left with some scientists who even go as far as to take a tooth found in one location and a skull fragment found 400 yards away nearly in a different layer of rock and put them together with some artistic interpretation to come up with some new breed of caveman. (not all are that shady, but there have been some who come up with these missing links that have been used to "prove" evolution and end up getting debunked for this reason). But the over all fossile record itself leaves a ton of gaps. (That's the whole reason punctuated equillibrium was thought up in the first place--to account for the gaps.)

All in all then, macro-evolution is weakly supported, yet there's so many people out there defending it as scientific truth and so many others just taking what they're spoon fed.

Amnorix
10-21-2004, 03:55 PM
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with the National Park Service having available for sale both Creationism and "regular science" (no idea what phrase to use, but Evolutionary doesn't seem quite right in this context) books relating to the Grand Canyon.

I don't see that having them available either promotes or entangles government with religion in any kind of unacceptable way. :shrug:

Basically, IMHO, people get their panties in a bunch way too easily over insignificant crap like this all too often.

Amnorix
10-21-2004, 04:02 PM
All in all then, macro-evolution is weakly supported, yet there's so many people out there defending it as scientific truth and so many others just taking what they're spoon fed.

I'm genuinely curious and not trying to be an ass... (although I often play one on TV...)

I take it from your posts that you generally believe in Creationism. What is the explanation for dinosaur bones/fossils, etc.?

Cochise
10-21-2004, 04:07 PM
Basically, IMHO, people get their panties in a bunch way too easily over insignificant crap like this all too often.

Me too, on both ends of the spectrum.

Chieficus
10-21-2004, 04:17 PM
I'm genuinely curious and not trying to be an ass... (although I often play one on TV...)

I take it from your posts that you generally believe in Creationism. What is the explanation for dinosaur bones/fossils, etc.?

Some will attribute it to a climate change and the fact that any dinos taken onto the ark died off quikly after. I don't buy the climate change argument (this mainly comes from those who say that there was a vapor canopy and the climate throughout the earth was a constant temperature), but certainly I think a couple dinos were on the ark.

Now there someone can raise the question: "So what did Noah do, go wrestle a T-rex into that boat? That's so stupid." However, the Bible doesn't say that Noah took two of ever breed onto the ark, but two of every kind. He wouldn't take two german shepherds and two golden retreivers and two so-on-and-so-forth. In fact, the principles and theories of microevolution go along way to detailing how we could get the variety in breeds of species we currently have in even a short time period such as a few thousand years. The Bible also details God telling Noah that the animals will "Come to you," hence indicating God's sovereign control over the selection of the animals that were perserved. Therefore if Noah took dinosaurs along, they would probably most likely be of the smaller variation. After the flood, they became extinct like other animals have become extinct.

Either that or they're living in the jungles of "Lost." (and since I don't watch that show, if they've already told what the creatures are, then my joke's bad)... :)

There is some potential biblical evidence of man and dions living together. The problem is most of it is in poetic form and that genre, not all the time but a good number of times, will use exaggerated and figurative language.

Chieficus
10-21-2004, 04:20 PM
Me too, on both ends of the spectrum.

I think a lot of that has to do with people being insecure in their views.

Personally, I like opposing view points, they cause me to think and examine my beliefs. That doesn't mean I'll accept them and that doesn't mean I won't argue fervently against them...but I like 'em...

Chiefnj
10-21-2004, 04:20 PM
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with the National Park Service having available for sale both Creationism and "regular science" (no idea what phrase to use, but Evolutionary doesn't seem quite right in this context) books relating to the Grand Canyon.

I don't see that having them available either promotes or entangles government with religion in any kind of unacceptable way. :shrug:

Basically, IMHO, people get their panties in a bunch way too easily over insignificant crap like this all too often.


How do you feel about this part:

"The creationist book is not the only religious controversy at Grand Canyon National Park. One week prior to the approved sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, NPS Deputy Director Donald Murphy ordered that bronze plaques bearing Psalm verses be returned and reinstalled at canyon overlooks."

Pants
10-21-2004, 04:25 PM
You do realize there are millions os species of animals, many of them not even discovered yet. Thinking that a man would be able to do what is described in Bible... well lets just it's not feasible.

listopencil
10-22-2004, 02:27 AM
Here ya go. Some light reading for you on the subject by Mark Twain:

"Noah and his family were saved -- if that could be called an advantage. I throw in the if for the reason that there has never been an intelligent person of the age of sixty who would consent to live his life over again. His or anyone else's. The Family were saved, yes, but they were not comfortable, for they were full of microbes. Full to the eyebrows; fat with them, obese with them, distended like balloons. It was a disagreeable condition, but it could not be helped, because enough microbes had to be saved to supply the future races of men with desolating diseases, and there were but eight persons on board to serve as hotels for them. The microbes were by far the most important part of the Ark's cargo, and the part the Creator was most anxious about and most infatuated with. They had to have good nourishment and pleasant accommodations. There were typhoid germs, and cholera germs, and hydrophobia germs, and lockjaw germs, and consumption germs, and black-plague germs, and some hundreds of other aristocrats, specially precious creations, golden bearers of God's love to man, blessed gifts of the infatuated Father to his children -- all of which had to be sumptuously housed and richly entertained; these were located in the choicest places the interiors of the Family could furnish: in the lungs, in the heart, in the brain, in the kidneys, in the blood, in the guts. In the guts particularly. The great intestine was the favorite resort. There they gathered, by countless billions, and worked, and fed, and squirmed, and sang hymns of praise and thanksgiving; and at night when it was quiet you could hear the soft murmur of it. The large intestine was in effect their heaven. They stuffed it solid; they made it as rigid as a coil of gaspipe. They took pride in this. Their principal hymn made gratified reference to it:

Constipation, O Constipation,
The Joyful sound proclaim
Till man's remotest entrail
Shall praise its Maker's name "

Here's a link to the text of the book,Letters From Earth.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm

The first page (the link takes you to it) has a lot of stuff about the story of The Ark. Good stuff.

Lomax
10-22-2004, 04:15 AM
Here ya go. Some light reading for you on the subject by Mark Twain:

"Noah and his family were saved -- if that could be called an advantage. I throw in the if for the reason that there has never been an intelligent person of the age of sixty who would consent to live his life over again. His or anyone else's. The Family were saved, yes, but they were not comfortable, for they were full of microbes. Full to the eyebrows; fat with them, obese with them, distended like balloons. It was a disagreeable condition, but it could not be helped, because enough microbes had to be saved to supply the future races of men with desolating diseases, and there were but eight persons on board to serve as hotels for them. The microbes were by far the most important part of the Ark's cargo, and the part the Creator was most anxious about and most infatuated with. They had to have good nourishment and pleasant accommodations. There were typhoid germs, and cholera germs, and hydrophobia germs, and lockjaw germs, and consumption germs, and black-plague germs, and some hundreds of other aristocrats, specially precious creations, golden bearers of God's love to man, blessed gifts of the infatuated Father to his children -- all of which had to be sumptuously housed and richly entertained; these were located in the choicest places the interiors of the Family could furnish: in the lungs, in the heart, in the brain, in the kidneys, in the blood, in the guts. In the guts particularly. The great intestine was the favorite resort. There they gathered, by countless billions, and worked, and fed, and squirmed, and sang hymns of praise and thanksgiving; and at night when it was quiet you could hear the soft murmur of it. The large intestine was in effect their heaven. They stuffed it solid; they made it as rigid as a coil of gaspipe. They took pride in this. Their principal hymn made gratified reference to it:

Constipation, O Constipation,
The Joyful sound proclaim
Till man's remotest entrail
Shall praise its Maker's name "

Here's a link to the text of the book,Letters From Earth.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm

The first page (the link takes you to it) has a lot of stuff about the story of The Ark. Good stuff.

Sounds like a man who was comfortable to turn his back toward God. Bully for Sam, then.

NewChief
10-22-2004, 06:19 AM
How about a common-sense explanation of how the water came from places other than the sky...

There's a nice little river down in southern Missouri, maybe you've heard about it being from Arkansas, its called the Current River, great river to take your family canoeing and camping and stuff...fridged water, though...because its a river fed mostly from under ground springs. The water thus, comes up and from some place other than the sky.



Interestingly enough, I'm currently reading a book on spring creeks. I understand the concept, I just don't understand how "science" can explain the springs suddenly gushing forth enough water to flood the earth.

Cochise did as good of a job answering my question as necessary. My whole point was that if you're a believer, at some point, you have to make a leap of faith, ala Kierkegaard. I know that the trend in Christian apologetics right now is to try to bring their beliefs up to scientific and philosophical date (ala Francis Schaeffer, who is awesome btw. If you ever get a chance to go to a L'abri study center, I recommend it highly), but if science is as easily twisted as you say, then everything is just a matter of faith (back to Kierkegaard). Therefore, there's no reason in trying to even use science, after all, you've admitted "If you're crafty enough you can get scientific evidence to support just about anything you darn well want"....including creationism.;)

tiptap
10-22-2004, 09:50 AM
A very quick explanation why I think Fundalmentalism is flawed.
This is not an exhaustive argument.

A. 9+6x7+3/2 = is a mathematical statement. If you do the operations, parse the information, left to right you get one answer 19. If you do the operations according to the rules of algebra and perform multiplication and division first you get the answer 55 and a half. Same numbers and operation, two answers because it makes a difference in what order the operations are done. (This distinction is why math can be confusing since the algebraic rules are at odds with our normal left to right reading mode.) All functions like exponentials, trig, square roots and even integrals are very specific order of operations to get a consistent answer. The same is true for logic. Logic and mathematics are the same. This is why computers can produce mathematics based upon a transitor to represent logic gates.

This was all to get to this: even IF the Bible is inerrant it fails to give an explicit (or consistent) indication of the order of ideas within its 66 books. Everyone can choose to emphasize some verse relative to another. (This is why we have so many denominations and why the Catholic Church includes Church findings in its theology.) The Bible can be used to support many diverse ideas because of this. It fails to be unambiguous in its teaching. We all bring a great deal in assumptions as well in reading the Bible. (I have read it.) This is why one person can see a great deal of conflicting statement while another insists that the verses contend with different matters and are consistent at some other level. It doesn't require spiritual eyes just different ordering of ideas.

B. But what is consistent is the assumption that we can relay our ideas because there is understanding in rational statements. We may not know God's reasons but we are confident that we can understand reasoning. For those in the tradition of Einstein, Spinoza and others, we find that the universe is understandable and not capricious because we have a capacity to model, choose the ordering of operations of the rationality and consistency within the universe. One difference between Greek Science and modern Scientific thought is that we demand the model have predictive value and therefore can be shown to give answers different then observations. We then hone those models to represent ever larger diverse situations.

C For those who choose 66 books as their starting assumptions it would seem to allow for a great deal of leeway. Science tries to limit the assumptions and still models well a great deal of physical behavior. Conservation laws are simple starting points. They can be demonstrated. They can be tested. If I have a bowling ball and I drop it on your toes or if you drop one on my toes it will not matter what words or equations I would use to deflect the pain, I would still have to deal with the internal consistency nature presents. And it would be the same no matter how many times you drop that ball on my foot. When the symbols (words) used to represent 'truth' becomes more important than WHAT they represent or relate, we can be decieved.

D. Creationism tend to be a top down understanding of existence. There is a plan, a purpose. However the evidence is a bottom up universe. Small number of forces give rise to particles in the form of proton, neutrons and electrons. These small items by simply changing their numbers involved give rise to different atoms that in so large of numbers give rise the diversity in what is in the world including the geology of our planet. The same bottom up approach is demonstrated in biology. The cell being the basic building block of biology. The cells by the nature of the atoms internal to the cell, can be combined to present a diverse flora and fauna.

I have read IRC sites, I have looked at the evidence itself (chemistry and biology degree). The physical evidence is self consistent for billions of years existence of earth. The volume of water needed to flood the world is not present and such severe deformation of the world to change basins within the last 10,000 years is not in evidence. The world has not stopped and started spinning on its axis as would be necessary for the sun to stop its daily progression as claimed by Joshua and the one of the Kings of Judea. No signs of the supersonic tidal wave if the earth stopped spinning and the waters rushed from their basins. Some things are impossible even for God. (Can He forgive sins without a sacrifice or can He cease to exist.) And so no less for a world to exist and be self consistent.

Lomax
10-22-2004, 10:14 AM
Two degrees? Wow. A couple thousand years from now we'll be worshiping you for sure.

NewChief
10-22-2004, 10:18 AM
Two degrees? Wow. A couple thousand years from now we'll be worshiping you for sure.

Way to respond to his points! :thumb:


ROFL

Amnorix
10-22-2004, 11:05 AM
Some will attribute it to a climate change and the fact that any dinos taken onto the ark died off quikly after. I don't buy the climate change argument (this mainly comes from those who say that there was a vapor canopy and the climate throughout the earth was a constant temperature), but certainly I think a couple dinos were on the ark.

Now there someone can raise the question: "So what did Noah do, go wrestle a T-rex into that boat? That's so stupid." However, the Bible doesn't say that Noah took two of ever breed onto the ark, but two of every kind. He wouldn't take two german shepherds and two golden retreivers and two so-on-and-so-forth. In fact, the principles and theories of microevolution go along way to detailing how we could get the variety in breeds of species we currently have in even a short time period such as a few thousand years. The Bible also details God telling Noah that the animals will "Come to you," hence indicating God's sovereign control over the selection of the animals that were perserved. Therefore if Noah took dinosaurs along, they would probably most likely be of the smaller variation. After the flood, they became extinct like other animals have become extinct.

Either that or they're living in the jungles of "Lost." (and since I don't watch that show, if they've already told what the creatures are, then my joke's bad)... :)

There is some potential biblical evidence of man and dions living together. The problem is most of it is in poetic form and that genre, not all the time but a good number of times, will use exaggerated and figurative language.

Thanks for your answer, but I didn't phrase my question very clearly. Let me rephrase:

What is/are the Creationist explanations, understandings or beliefs regarding:

1. the existence of dinosaurs (did they, didn't they)?

2. the timeframe that dinosaurs existed (commonly understood to be millions of years ago)

3. why dinosaurs died out while other animals didn't

4. if dinosaurs never existed, why do we have fossil remains for them?

5. if dinosaurs did exist, then presumably they must have co-existed with Man, in which case why aren't they mentioned hardly at all in the Bible. Many other animals/creatures which are of far less significance are mentioned.

Amnorix
10-22-2004, 11:13 AM
Other areas of confusion I have regarding Biblical explanation for things (that I'd be interested in having clarified if anyone wants to bother):

Assuming Creationism:

1. what is the explanation for the different races of mankind? If we are all descended from Adam and Eve, why are some of us white, black, asian, etc.

2. How does Creationism account for the movement of the earth's plates relative to (1) the current movement of the plates, and (2) the separation of various species of mankind. More specifically, "regular science" says that Native American Indians probably crossed the land bridge between Asia and North America many thousands of years ago before the continents were separated. I'm uncertain how many thousands of years ago, but assuming the Adam and Eve theory is correct, is the world even old enough under Creationism to account for this? If not, what is the altnerative explanation?

3. God created Adam and Eve, who begat Cain and Abel. Cain slew Abel. IIRC thsi resulted in Cain being driven out. Queries: who is Cain marry? Who did Adam and Eve's subsequent children marry in order to procreate?

I actually posed #3 in a separate thread, but would be interested in seeing your answer. I'll go back and doublecheck that other thread as the answer I got clearly didn't sink into my thick skull too well as I don't remember the answer offhand...

Chieficus
10-22-2004, 11:16 AM
Interestingly enough, I'm currently reading a book on spring creeks. I understand the concept, I just don't understand how "science" can explain the springs suddenly gushing forth enough water to flood the earth.

Cochise did as good of a job answering my question as necessary. My whole point was that if you're a believer, at some point, you have to make a leap of faith, ala Kierkegaard. I know that the trend in Christian apologetics right now is to try to bring their beliefs up to scientific and philosophical date (ala Francis Schaeffer, who is awesome btw. If you ever get a chance to go to a L'abri study center, I recommend it highly), but if science is as easily twisted as you say, then everything is just a matter of faith (back to Kierkegaard). Therefore, there's no reason in trying to even use science, after all, you've admitted "If you're crafty enough you can get scientific evidence to support just about anything you darn well want"....including creationism.;)

Ah, yes, Francis Schaeffer--he just happens to be my favorite author. :thumb: Although I wouldn't say so much that he tried to bring his belief up to scientific and philisophical date. He certainly sees it as such that Christians should understand science and philosophy to know how to respond to the world around us. But he didn't try so much to integrate his belief into science and philosophy. Schaeffer and Cornelius Van Til were the kingpins of "presuppositional apologetics,"--examining evidence is an important thing, but evidence should not be the base of our argument, for evidence fails to provide an absolute basis because we look at it though a subjective eye. Therefore, what we really need to do is to take a step back and examine the foundation of our belief, understandings and interpretations--the basic assumptions we all make. And then we examine which assmptions are valid. Or as Alvin Plantinga would say: Which beliefs are warranted?

As for Kierkegaard, his leap had a flaw as with it, he separated out "faith" from "reason." To where reason and mind can view things objectively but faith and belief flow from the subjectiveness of the heart. On one hand, he was a nihilist, staring into the great abyss with his mind, on the other hand he couldn't accept the conclusions with his heart. And this is what we see currently in our cultural mindset--the basics of existentialism drive how we view the world...faith is a matter of personal private choice, but if we're going to deal with matters of public policy we must set faith aside and look at it through the objectiveness of reason and the coldness of science (or so we are told)...

The problem is, reason and mind cannot be objective for it cannot escape the basic presuppositions we hold to. Hence, faith is not so much of a leap, but rather is supported by a crutch. And we all lean on crutches no matter what we believe. So the question then becomes: in the end, will our crutch show to be valid or just a pipe dream?

And so when it comes down to using science, there's nothing wrong with using it and integrating it with your belief. But are the assumptions one makes valid before he even begins to look at the evidence science provides?

(BTW, thanks for the good, engaging post... :clap: )

Amnorix
10-22-2004, 11:34 AM
How do you feel about this part:

"The creationist book is not the only religious controversy at Grand Canyon National Park. One week prior to the approved sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, NPS Deputy Director Donald Murphy ordered that bronze plaques bearing Psalm verses be returned and reinstalled at canyon overlooks."

I have a bit of a problem with a bunch of religious plaques, but wouldn't get real excited unless they were a ridiculous example of proselytizing or something. A huge oversized plaque that said only the greatness of god could create beauty such as this, or something like that, would be a problem.

Short of something ridiculous like that, I wouldn't be offended.

Chieficus
10-22-2004, 12:12 PM
A very quick explanation why I think Fundalmentalism is flawed.
This is not an exhaustive argument.

A. 9+6x7+3/2 = is a mathematical statement. If you do the operations, parse the information, left to right you get one answer 19. If you do the operations according to the rules of algebra and perform multiplication and division first you get the answer 55 and a half. Same numbers and operation, two answers because it makes a difference in what order the operations are done. (This distinction is why math can be confusing since the algebraic rules are at odds with our normal left to right reading mode.) All functions like exponentials, trig, square roots and even integrals are very specific order of operations to get a consistent answer. The same is true for logic. Logic and mathematics are the same. This is why computers can produce mathematics based upon a transitor to represent logic gates.

This was all to get to this: even IF the Bible is inerrant it fails to give an explicit (or consistent) indication of the order of ideas within its 66 books. Everyone can choose to emphasize some verse relative to another. (This is why we have so many denominations and why the Catholic Church includes Church findings in its theology.) The Bible can be used to support many diverse ideas because of this. It fails to be unambiguous in its teaching. We all bring a great deal in assumptions as well in reading the Bible. (I have read it.) This is why one person can see a great deal of conflicting statement while another insists that the verses contend with different matters and are consistent at some other level. It doesn't require spiritual eyes just different ordering of ideas.

In paragraph one it seems you try to show mathematics/logic to be autonomous and self consistent. Well, there's two problems with that: 1) Math and logic become invalid unless the rules are defined from the start. The consistency of math & logic and our understanding that comes from them are contingent upon the rules we lay down. 2) I have some friends who are math majors and are getting ready to go do post-grad stuff with math...it's cool some of the stories they tell me about, for lack of a better term, "theoretical" mathematics. It throws the consistency argument out the window.

With the second paragraph you contrast your first view against the Bible to say that the Bible is inconsistent (and therefore inferior?). You start the paragraph by saying the Bible fails to give a consistent order of ideas then you end by saying that we all bring a great deal of assumptions into reading the scripture. Well given the first paragraph and some of what you say in the second, you assume that "consitency" lay within some "mathematical/logical" flow...kinda like a computer program... If A then B, If non-A then C. If B then D, if C then E...

Kinda reminds me of a scene from the movie Donnie Darko, in which the happy-positive teacher lady wants everyone to place life situations into one of two categories: Love and Fear. Darko stands up and says you can't do it becaues life isn't that simple. Life ain't a mathematical formula, either. And the Bible is a book concerning life, and relationships (between 'man and man' and 'God and man'). If you want consistency in a mathematical-formulaic way and start with the assumption that consistency must be found in that, then of course you're not going to see the Bible as consistent. That doesn't mean it's not (and I'm not talking about some higher level, either)...

B. But what is consistent is the assumption that we can relay our ideas because there is understanding in rational statements. We may not know God's reasons but we are confident that we can understand reasoning. For those in the tradition of Einstein, Spinoza and others, we find that the universe is understandable and not capricious because we have a capacity to model, choose the ordering of operations of the rationality and consistency within the universe. One difference between Greek Science and modern Scientific thought is that we demand the model have predictive value and therefore can be shown to give answers different then observations. We then hone those models to represent ever larger diverse situations.

About the only thing I want to say here is in terms of that statement: "that we demand the model have predictive value." Since you're arguing along the lines of Spinoza, that predictive value must be so consistent that God does not ever interfere with the order of events. Therefore the assumption you make before the assumption you stated is that "the history of the universe functions in a closed system of cause and effect." If you start with that assumption then you end up with what you say. If you start with the assumption that the history is open to the hand of God working it, then due to the creative order we can still develop a predictive system but without the overarching absolutism of it. In your examination with this point, you're not getting basic enough.

C For those who choose 66 books as their starting assumptions it would seem to allow for a great deal of leeway. Science tries to limit the assumptions and still models well a great deal of physical behavior. Conservation laws are simple starting points. They can be demonstrated. They can be tested. If I have a bowling ball and I drop it on your toes or if you drop one on my toes it will not matter what words or equations I would use to deflect the pain, I would still have to deal with the internal consistency nature presents. And it would be the same no matter how many times you drop that ball on my foot. When the symbols (words) used to represent 'truth' becomes more important than WHAT they represent or relate, we can be decieved.

For starters, inerrantists don't use the Bible as our basic assumption. The Bible itself isn't an absolute basis. It can only be inerrant if it is founded upon an abosulte basis that makes it inerrant (i.e. God). Therefore, yes, the "what" is more important than the "words" themselves. However, communication is at the heart of understanding and communication is inseparable from symbols. And that's true of both sides of the asile.

D. Creationism tend to be a top down understanding of existence. There is a plan, a purpose. However the evidence is a bottom up universe. Small number of forces give rise to particles in the form of proton, neutrons and electrons. These small items by simply changing their numbers involved give rise to different atoms that in so large of numbers give rise the diversity in what is in the world including the geology of our planet. The same bottom up approach is demonstrated in biology. The cell being the basic building block of biology. The cells by the nature of the atoms internal to the cell, can be combined to present a diverse flora and fauna.

Now don't go trying to separate your understanding of the evidence from your presuppostions on me...

I have read IRC sites, I have looked at the evidence itself (chemistry and biology degree). The physical evidence is self consistent for billions of years existence of earth. The volume of water needed to flood the world is not present and such severe deformation of the world to change basins within the last 10,000 years is not in evidence. The world has not stopped and started spinning on its axis as would be necessary for the sun to stop its daily progression as claimed by Joshua and the one of the Kings of Judea. No signs of the supersonic tidal wave if the earth stopped spinning and the waters rushed from their basins. Some things are impossible even for God. (Can He forgive sins without a sacrifice or can He cease to exist.) And so no less for a world to exist and be self consistent.

1) You interprete the evdience based on your presuppostions.

2) Your presuppositions are automatically invalidating the conclusions of the miraculous events. i.e. "God couldn't have made the world stop spinning because there would have been a massive tidal wave and evidence for that tidal wave. We so no evidence of a tidal wave therefore God didn't stop the world from spinning and thus that Bible story couldn't have happened." Hmmm...if God is able to step into the normal course of cause and effect events and stop the world from spinning, then surpressing a naturally expected resultant tidal wave isn't going to be a big deal to him.

But again, it's not the evidence that's of primary concern, but the presuppositions...

KCWolfman
10-22-2004, 12:22 PM
They can't sell a book because it is not scientific fact at the Grand Canyon? Has the book been mislabled "The official Book of the Grand Canyon National Park"? If not, what is the fervor about?

Please remove the singing fish plaques, the Curious George books, and all sci-fi related material from all National Park souvenir shops, then talk to me about it.

NewChief
10-22-2004, 12:30 PM
They can't sell a book because it is not scientific fact at the Grand Canyon? Has the book been mislabled "The official Book of the Grand Canyon National Park"? If not, what is the fervor about?

Please remove the singing fish plaques, the Curious George books, and all sci-fi related material from all National Park souvenir shops, then talk to me about it.

Well, the best part is that I saw this post on a forum where they were billing it as proof that the Bush Administration is pushing creationism over science. I thought it would be interesting to throw it out here and see what people did with it. No one bit too hard, though.

KCWolfman
10-22-2004, 12:35 PM
Well, the best part is that I saw this post on a forum where they were billing it as proof that the Bush Administration is pushing creationism over science. I thought it would be interesting to throw it out here and see what people did with it. No one bit too hard, though.
Then close down Union Station. They are promoting the idea that live on Mars is real and a human is waiting on the planet to save us all religiously. I bought my copy of Stranger in a Strange Land only 5 months ago there.

Selling a book is not promoting an agenda, it is garnering profits.

Chieficus
10-22-2004, 12:45 PM
Other areas of confusion I have regarding Biblical explanation for things (that I'd be interested in having clarified if anyone wants to bother):

Assuming Creationism:

1. what is the explanation for the different races of mankind? If we are all descended from Adam and Eve, why are some of us white, black, asian, etc.

First of all, good questions.

Now for the best answers I can give:

Simple genetics. When you have a population that begins to grow and spread out, they'll enter into areas where certain traits are better for adaptation and are thus selected. These different population "cells" tend to be isolated from others, and there is a certain level of inbreeding that takes place, and this tends to force the genetic allels (sp?) to show the extremities of various traits. Hence, something like skin color would change and the extremes of skin color (dark and light) would begin to show up and become more prevalent.

I think the "technical" term is "founders effect," if I remember my Biology correctly.

2. How does Creationism account for the movement of the earth's plates relative to (1) the current movement of the plates, and (2) the separation of various species of mankind. More specifically, "regular science" says that Native American Indians probably crossed the land bridge between Asia and North America many thousands of years ago before the continents were separated. I'm uncertain how many thousands of years ago, but assuming the Adam and Eve theory is correct, is the world even old enough under Creationism to account for this? If not, what is the altnerative explanation?

The idea of Pangea and the separation of the continants is not inconsistent with creationism. There are some who say that part of the effect of the flood and the reshaping that was done afterwards involved the break up and intial rapid movement of the continents. Then, if starting with the assumption of the Christian God, it can be argued also that God created the different land areas almost as is, but they remained unpopulated until later. And I'm sure there's probably some other theories.

As for the spreading out of the people: for the dates, it first depends upon the validity of the dating arguments and the assumptions that lay under those arguments and the examination of the evidence. Clearly from a Biblical prespective, we do have the God-ordained "spreading-out" of the population with the tower of Bable.

3. God created Adam and Eve, who begat Cain and Abel. Cain slew Abel. IIRC thsi resulted in Cain being driven out. Queries: who is Cain marry? Who did Adam and Eve's subsequent children marry in order to procreate?

I actually posed #3 in a separate thread, but would be interested in seeing your answer. I'll go back and doublecheck that other thread as the answer I got clearly didn't sink into my thick skull too well as I don't remember the answer offhand...

The Bible doesn't give us the numbers of how many children Adam and Eve begat. And regardless of your creation view point--evolution, special creation, or something else--there's going to be a certain amount of inbreeding that occurs. From a Biblical perspective, given the longer lifespan of humans at the time and the fact that God did not declare inbreeding against the moral Law until later, Cain simply married one of his sisters. Of course, also given the Biblical perspective and that God is sovereign over the universe, He can easily keep the human life span longer and the detrimental effects of inbreeding surpressed as long as it needs be for us to build up the population on the earth of which He told us to be "fruitful and multiply."

My brain is getting a little fried right now, and I need a break...probably could have answered some of these better...but really all of them come down to the presuppositions we start with...

NewChief
10-22-2004, 12:46 PM
Then close down Union Station. They are promoting the idea that live on Mars is real and a human is waiting on the planet to save us all religiously. I bought my copy of Stranger in a Strange Land only 5 months ago there.

Selling a book is not promoting an agenda, it is garnering profits.

Well, the thread has led to some interesting discussion, though. Very little of it having to do with whether the book should be sold or not.

KCWolfman
10-22-2004, 12:49 PM
Well, the thread has led to some interesting discussion, though. Very little of it having to do with whether the book should be sold or not.
Agreed.

Mark M
10-22-2004, 01:10 PM
Selling a book is not promoting an agenda, it is garnering profits.

That's the way I see it.

IMHO, there is no problem with selling a book like this anywhere, no matter who owns/runs the bookstore. I may not agree with the book's conclusions, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be offered.

At the very least, it provides for alternate theories. Again, IMHO, that is never bad a thing.

MM
~~:shrug:

Mark M
10-22-2004, 01:16 PM
Simple genetics. When you have a population that begins to grow and spread out, they'll enter into areas where certain traits are better for adaptation and are thus selected. These different population "cells" tend to be isolated from others, and there is a certain level of inbreeding that takes place, and this tends to force the genetic allels (sp?) to show the extremities of various traits. Hence, something like skin color would change and the extremes of skin color (dark and light) would begin to show up and become more prevalent.

I think the "technical" term is "founders effect," if I remember my Biology correctly.
Actually, the translation to singular "Man" and "Woman," or, as the 'modern' Old Testament puts it, "Adam" and "Eve," is technically incorrect.

In the original text, the words meant "Men" and "Women." Plural. The translation, for whatever reason, became singular when going from Hebrew to Greek to English.

Personally, I have a difficult time with both straight evolution and straight creationism (um ... I guess those aren't to be confused with "gay" evolution and creationism. ;) ). I currently reside in the "I have no effing idea how we got here, but we did" camp.

MM
~~:)

Chieficus
10-22-2004, 02:32 PM
In the original text, the words meant "Men" and "Women." Plural. The translation, for whatever reason, became singular when going from Hebrew to Greek to English.


I'm not sure where you got your information from...

...and as for me, I don't know hebrew (yet), Greek is my current course of study here at seminary, I'll pick up Hebrew later. But I do know plenty of people who know Hebrew and I asked one about the word man in Genesis 1 and 2.

He pulled out his Hebrew Old Testament looked at it and said, in 1:26 where it says "let us make man in our image" the word contains no article and can be generic for "mankind." However in 1:27 it says "God created man (in Hebrew: the article is there and the noun is masculin and singular so "the man") in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." This is all in the context of the order of God's creation.

In chapter two when we get to the specifics of man's creation we see in verse 2:7 and following that the Hebrew word man also contains the definite article and is also a masculin, singular noun...and thus "the man." Which ends up also becoming the name of that first man "Adam."

Amnorix
10-22-2004, 02:34 PM
Well, the thread has led to some interesting discussion, though. Very little of it having to do with whether the book should be sold or not.

Prolly mostly because it's really damn hard to understand why a public park can't sell a religious book about the public park alongside picture books about the park, history books about the area, etc.

It would take a die-hard, extreme left winger to argue against such a non-offensive act as selling a certain type of book along with other books.

Mark M
10-22-2004, 02:50 PM
I'm not sure where you got your information from...

...and as for me, I don't know hebrew (yet), Greek is my current course of study here at seminary, I'll pick up Hebrew later. But I do know plenty of people who know Hebrew and I asked one about the word man in Genesis 1 and 2.

He pulled out his Hebrew Old Testament looked at it and said, in 1:26 where it says "let us make man in our image" the word contains no article and can be generic for "mankind." However in 1:27 it says "God created man (in Hebrew: the article is there and the noun is masculin and singular so "the man") in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." This is all in the context of the order of God's creation.

In chapter two when we get to the specifics of man's creation we see in verse 2:7 and following that the Hebrew word man also contains the definite article and is also a masculin, singular noun...and thus "the man." Which ends up also becoming the name of that first man "Adam."
My info comes from a Catholic nun who taught Greek, Hebrew, Latin, German and several other languages at SMSU. She's presented at Oxford, Yale, Cambridge and many other respected institutions. In short, she knows her stuff!

One must also not forget that translating can be tricky business unless many things are taken into account--such as context, literary conventions at the time, the particular text one is translating (is it older or newer, by whom it is written), etc.

All in all, pretty cool stuff!

MM
~~:thumb:

tiptap
10-22-2004, 03:01 PM
see entry 54


1) You interprete the evdience based on your presuppostions.

2) Your presuppositions are automatically invalidating the conclusions of the miraculous events. i.e. "God couldn't have made the world stop spinning because there would have been a massive tidal wave and evidence for that tidal wave. We so no evidence of a tidal wave therefore God didn't stop the world from spinning and thus that Bible story couldn't have happened." Hmmm...if God is able to step into the normal course of cause and effect events and stop the world from spinning, then surpressing a naturally expected resultant tidal wave isn't going to be a big deal to him.

But again, it's not the evidence that's of primary concern, but the presuppositions...
OK, I get it. You see the world as arbitrary. I don't know, you don't know when the next time God is going to change how the world functions. There is no consistency. There is not a relationship at all between events as observable as a falling object and the mass of the involved items. It happens because God moves it that way and everything in existence. But you want me to believe that God revokes our everyday observations, like the appearance of the sun rising and setting, so to help Joshua's Israelites beat in battle the Canaanites. God does this just to demonstrate his power and does not interfere directly with the Israelites loses in battle. And to do so it makes sense to expend the equivalent of trillion and trillion and trillions of ergs of energy rather than just striking the enemy down where they stand and then hiding any indication of such an event other then the WORDS that say it is so.

The reason Noah's story is discussed here is that the Creationists offer the Grand Canyon as evidence of God. Their facts are arranged to support the Great Flood story as the origin of the Grand Canyon. They are looking for the validation of the story of Noah. (They try and ignore the Joshua event because it is a bigger event than the Great Flood and that much harder to rectify historically as well as physical evidence.) The explanation that correctly jibes with the greatest amount of evidence is that the Grand Canyon took hundreds of thousands of years. It fits with the amount of water we have on hand today, it fits with weather cycles and erosion we see all the time, it fits with natural circumstances. No supernatural explanation is needed.

KCWolfman
10-22-2004, 03:16 PM
It would take a die-hard, extreme left winger to argue against such a non-offensive act as selling a certain type of book along with other books.

That would explain why Duhnise hasn't posted here.

Lomax
10-22-2004, 03:41 PM
Speaking strictly toward the issue of whether the book should be available for purchase in the Grand Canyon bookstore, two things:

1. I doubt the government itself runs the store. I'd bet that Aramark or some other similar contractor leases the space and runs the store.

2. If I'm wrong and the government does run the store and your objection is of an establishment of religion nature, would you also support removing all religious texts from public libraries?

Sounds dangerous to me. Who gets to decide what is religious? If the definition of something that is religious includes information that can't be proved definitively but must ultimately be taken on faith at some level, we'll be removing a lot of what we usually call science.

Chieficus
10-22-2004, 06:04 PM
OK, I get it. You see the world as arbitrary. I don't know, you don't know when the next time God is going to change how the world functions. There is no consistency. There is not a relationship at all between events as observable as a falling object and the mass of the involved items. It happens because God moves it that way and everything in existence. But you want me to believe that God revokes our everyday observations, like the appearance of the sun rising and setting, so to help Joshua's Israelites beat in battle the Canaanites. God does this just to demonstrate his power and does not interfere directly with the Israelites loses in battle. And to do so it makes sense to expend the equivalent of trillion and trillion and trillions of ergs of energy rather than just striking the enemy down where they stand and then hiding any indication of such an event other then the WORDS that say it is so.

The reason Noah's story is discussed here is that the Creationists offer the Grand Canyon as evidence of God. Their facts are arranged to support the Great Flood story as the origin of the Grand Canyon. They are looking for the validation of the story of Noah. (They try and ignore the Joshua event because it is a bigger event than the Great Flood and that much harder to rectify historically as well as physical evidence.) The explanation that correctly jibes with the greatest amount of evidence is that the Grand Canyon took hundreds of thousands of years. It fits with the amount of water we have on hand today, it fits with weather cycles and erosion we see all the time, it fits with natural circumstances. No supernatural explanation is needed.

You're confusing the argument. The idea of an open cause and effect system operating through history does not make things arbitrary. Rather, God has built natural laws into the system that keep things functioning in an orderly and consistent manner. However, since God is the creator of natural things including natural law, He supercedes the law and can thus interact in a way contrary to what we would expect. As for the comment about expended energy, again if God interacts with the world, then this is a non-issue. But the evidence, or lack thereof from your viewpoint, is not the issue.

The issue is this: 1) Does God exist? 2) Does He interact in an open continuum of space/time history? That falls more into the line of presuppositions.

As for the flood aspect of that post...you say that the creationists try to say the evidence says X and you say the evidence says Y. Well, I'm a creationist and I'm saying that the evidence can say X or Y depending upon your baseline assumptions in your subjective interpretation of the evidence.

You have decided that Y is correct, not really so much because of the evidence, but because of your presuppositions that that drive your interpretation of the evidence.

What makes you think your presuppositions are valid?

Chieficus
10-22-2004, 06:07 PM
My info comes from a Catholic nun who taught Greek, Hebrew, Latin, German and several other languages at SMSU. She's presented at Oxford, Yale, Cambridge and many other respected institutions. In short, she knows her stuff!

One must also not forget that translating can be tricky business unless many things are taken into account--such as context, literary conventions at the time, the particular text one is translating (is it older or newer, by whom it is written), etc.

All in all, pretty cool stuff!

MM
~~:thumb:

Interesting...

Well, we checked my friend's translation against some professor's comments and also against the standard lexicon of the Hebrew language and it supported what I wrote previously...

Question: Did she just tell you this, or did she actually teach the Hebrew to you, parse the words and give supporting evidence?