Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222784 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119396 Aug 3, 2014
pale horse of death wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, sir.
If I may be able to offer some small contribution?
Somewhere in my memory there is a study of some cheetahs that have
"changed their spots" so to speak.
I guess some of the spots on some of the cheetahs
have merged or fused together to form a slightly different pattern
on the top anterior area of the body ( the rump I think?).
The scientists had been studying the cheetahs for some
time when they noticed the mutation in a few of the specimens.
They were going to continue the study to see how far the mutation
would carry on into the population over time to study the process of "natural selection"
in a present-day context to see of course, if current experience would verify assessments made of fossil remains. A "reality check" on evolution theory. I don't know what the
study revealed later as I never kept up on it. I was younger and had
many other interests at the time.
Pardon my nom d' plume,
it has a certain purpose
as a sort of 'tool'
for a certain job.
Species have a genotype and a phenotype.
The genotype comprises all the genetic traits observed, the phenotype is the composite of an species' observable characteristics and traits, such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Of course those two connect: the phenotype always is the result of the genotype to a major extent.

The problem with fossils is that they only allow (partial) determination of morphology and physiological appearance. Development may only be determined if we find specimen of both infants and adults of the same species. Sometimes we find evidence of behavior (like the fossilized nests of dinosaurs). Also SOME biochemical analysis is possible and only to a very restrict degree. But, moreover, we almost never can determine the genotype out of fossils, but in very rare and rather recent fossils.

In biology the main criterion to distinguish between related species is genetic isolation: when two (sub)populations cannot interbreed successfully (any more), they are called different species. But we do not have the genotypes of fossils. Because DNA deteriorates rather fast, even when preserved well.

But there IS a strong relationship between genotype and phenotype.
For instance, we know that if species have different procreative strategies (like live-birth and milk feeding in contrast to egg-laying), they inevitably belong to different species (and even to different classes).

If we study the precise relationship between phenotype and genotype of extant species and are able to establish statistically strong correlation, we may use this relationship to interfere form the fossil evidence (which tells a lot of phenotype but almost nothing of genotype) a better phylogeny. Which means: we are better capable of determining distinct species in fossils when lacking their genome.

The notion "species change into other species" is wrong. And not a little bit wrong but a major flaw. It leads to the utter ridiculous and stupid questions like "when humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes"? You really can't get it any more stupid than that.

The answer lays in an analogy: "when Americans are descendants from Europeans, why are there still any Europeans"? Stupid you find? Stupid it is, indeed.

New species arise as SUB-POPULATIONS from their ancestral species.
If humans descended from a Pithecus species, then chimps, gorillas and orang utans are the OTHER descendants ("Pithecus" = "ape", but MIND that apes are EXTANT species, hence the different name "Pithecus"). That ancient Pithecus species did not "change" into Homo Sapiens but gave rise to different daughter species, among those Homo Sapiens.
pale horse of death

Los Angeles, CA

#119397 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are just talking about how gene flow causes species evolution, bit no new species is emerging in what you are saying. What would have made a new species emerge , is that if a group of slightly different spotted cheetahs left the main group, and could not or refused to mate with the main group of cheetahs. After some lengthy amount of time, the sub group would become sexually incompatible with the main group and then be defined a new species.
Thank You, I understand your point completely. You response is a very possible conclusion to that story and couldn't have been better said.
As I mentioned I never kept up with the study. It was at least 20 years ago.
That article I read may have appeared in Omni Magazine, as I had a subscription to it at the time?? Possibly Discovery magazine.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119398 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
well heII there goes your whole theory of evolution if that is what you think. lol
but then again i know I have seen you, subduction zone, danfromsmithville and several other claim straight up that we have seen that happen in a lab. so please take the time and name one that we have seen!
You are acting like a pigeon shitting its crap all over a chess play, thinking it has won the game through this, flying back to its flock to cry victory.

Instead of this embarrassing behaviour, answer my questions.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119399 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
nice speech. i am a supporter of evolution but these retards preach and claim we have sen species to species in a lab but cannot show a change of species to a new species as they claim. why lie to support your cause? that makes them on the same level of a creationists, lying for their cause and
not better than them as we should be because we have science on our side..
For once in a while, can't you just stop tattling?
Do yourself and particularly us a favour and start to read about evolution.
Start with 101 level. In my country that would be grammar school.
pale horse of death

Los Angeles, CA

#119400 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha,
TurkanaBoy,
Thank You
So much!
I am delightedly
enlightened!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119401 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
show me one species we have actually seen change into another species. don't just talk the usual bs and say "we have seen them in the lab or in the fossil record". NAME me one species we have seen change into another species! slight change or variation does not count. just to make sure you see this i say again "slight change or variation does not count.it has to be one species changing to another species". i want one species changing to a different species that we have actually observed in real time, real life! point blank period. when you do that we will continue this discussion. end of story,
Tragopogon,(also known as salsify or goatsbeard) has split into at least one new species in the Americas since its introduction from Europe.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119402 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
In the first place the "flood" is not only lacking ANY geological evidence but is completely refuted by almost everything of modern geology.
According to modern interpretation which is obviously hostile to the ancients, who (it is assumed) could not distinguish between fact and fiction. Where is the dissent report? Actual written history records a deluge. Multiple sources. These are facts.
.
So TELL us, WHAT scientific evidence do you have for a young earth then?
I was referencing recorded history. You really have little, if any ancient precedent for any modern assumptions. Flood a myth etc. In 1850, for example not many taught human ancestors were ape like creatures. The kings of Europe traced their ancestry to Adam. That reflected their perception. Now you guy come along and say they were all wrong.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry....
Tell me what I should have missed last 35 years in the scientific literature and journals.
It's not what you miss, it is what you ignore. 3000 or so years of recorded history which directly refutes modern assumptions. Moderns were wrong about many things in the past as it relates to history. David kingdom comes to mind. The problem with the moderns is they do not keep track of their many screw ups. Where the ancients were right and moderns were wrong.
You may try one out of the about 70 dating techniques we have.
Take ANY of them. You may choose randomly and entirely at your whim.
Dating techniques which only a handful have any understanding with obvious built in materialist and old earth assumptions to accommodate common descent or macro evolution. Where is the dissent report?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119403 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That is in contrast to modern thinking, though I somewhat protested the thought at first myself too.
Erectus is considered more what you are saying a hominid , but humans were more than a single species, for instance , neandertal was a human, just a different kind of human.
But some even think we're a single species composed of subspecies.
But you might find this interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans
Here's the term.
archaic Homo sapiens
And another interesting read.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/libr...
In general, archaic Homo sapiens were ‘‘admitted to membership in our species because of their almost modern-sized brains, but set off as ‘archaic' because of their primitive looking cranial morphology" (Cartmill & Smith 2009).
I think the modern concept is merely not to solely stare at "species" by trying to force each fossil into one particular species but to study the evolutionary development in traits and phenotype as such instead. Biologists like Richard Dawkins are not concerning about whether Habilis was in the Pithecus or in the Hominid genus. they just don't care. The only thing they are interested in are its traits and its chronological place in the course of hominid evolution. The only things he is interested in, are:
- its ~610 cc cranial volume, larger than Australopithecus but smaller than Erectus
- its rather long arms but not as long as Australopithecus and shorter than Erectus
- its protruding muzzle but not that protruding like Australopithecus but less than Erectus
- its rather large molars and teeth but smaller than those of Australopithecus and larger than Erectus
- etc. other traits of its phenotype that perfectly fit an intermediate position between Australopithecus and Erectus
- its chronological place in the time-line of human evolution exactly between Australopithecus and Erectus (with some overlap with Erectus).

I notice that your first link to archaic humans refers to Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and also Homo antecessor.
That fits my assessment when I said that scientifically spoken it would be more convenient to confine "human" only to home Sapiens. These include all species mentioned in your list:
- homo Sapiens Sapiens (that will be us)
- homo Sapiens Heidelbergensis, homo Sapiens Rhodesiensis, homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis
- and may also include Homo antecessor.

Notice that homo Erectus and homo Habilis are not mentioned on the link.

This also applies to your second link, where it reads: "Most paleoanthropologists agree that Homo erectus and H. sapiens are distinct species".

I could agree with the assessments on both links.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119404 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"species have offspring that can become other species over time."
name one we have seen that has done that and not the fossil record or just mere change. actually a species becoming another species. after all the Lenski Ecoli that is always used is still just Ecoli.


We can see it in progress in certain ring species:

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119405 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> According to modern interpretation which is obviously hostile to the ancients, who (it is assumed) could not distinguish between fact and fiction. Where is the dissent report? Actual written history records a deluge. Multiple sources. These are facts.
.
<quoted text> I was referencing recorded history. You really have little, if any ancient precedent for any modern assumptions. Flood a myth etc. In 1850, for example not many taught human ancestors were ape like creatures. The kings of Europe traced their ancestry to Adam. That reflected their perception. Now you guy come along and say they were all wrong.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry....
<quoted text> It's not what you miss, it is what you ignore. 3000 or so years of recorded history which directly refutes modern assumptions. Moderns were wrong about many things in the past as it relates to history. David kingdom comes to mind. The problem with the moderns is they do not keep track of their many screw ups. Where the ancients were right and moderns were wrong.
<quoted text> Dating techniques which only a handful have any understanding with obvious built in materialist and old earth assumptions to accommodate common descent or macro evolution. Where is the dissent report?
Could you please provide any ANSWERS to my QUESTIONS please?
WHERE CAN I FIND THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119406 Aug 3, 2014
pale horse of death wrote:
Aura Mytha,
TurkanaBoy,
Thank You
So much!
I am delightedly
enlightened!
SURE you are.
BTW, about WHAT?
pale horse of death

Los Angeles, CA

#119407 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
SURE you are.
BTW, about WHAT?
I am enlightened as to the complete process by which, over a very long time, one species could possibly arise from another through the process of natural selection.
Look friends, i'm no university professor TO BE SURE, but I have an excellent understanding of science and technology, and have a very clear understanding of the scientific process.
I ALSO have a deep reverence for it! Even if only for science's eternal will to find the truth
of our existence.
My spiritual existence need never to go any further on this forum thread
than the above last statements.
Thank you again folks!
You have made a difference - an improvement - in my life,
as it should be.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119408 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you please provide any ANSWERS to my QUESTIONS please?
WHERE CAN I FIND THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION?
No need to shout, turkey boy. Why would you assume (your interpretation of) scientific evidence is the only evidence there is? Is not recorded history evidence? If you have multiple accounts of an ancient flood where one family makes it through on a boat, is that not evidence of the event in question from history. Multiple accounts provide weight to the event in question? Are these not the ancients understanding of a event which predated their writings?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#119409 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the modern concept is merely not to solely stare at "species" by trying to force each fossil into one particular species but to study the evolutionary development in traits and phenotype as such instead. Biologists like Richard Dawkins are not concerning about whether Habilis was in the Pithecus or in the Hominid genus. they just don't care. The only thing they are interested in are its traits and its chronological place in the course of hominid evolution. The only things he is interested in, are:
- its ~610 cc cranial volume, larger than Australopithecus but smaller than Erectus
- its rather long arms but not as long as Australopithecus and shorter than Erectus
- its protruding muzzle but not that protruding like Australopithecus but less than Erectus
- its rather large molars and teeth but smaller than those of Australopithecus and larger than Erectus
- etc. other traits of its phenotype that perfectly fit an intermediate position between Australopithecus and Erectus
- its chronological place in the time-line of human evolution exactly between Australopithecus and Erectus (with some overlap with Erectus).
I notice that your first link to archaic humans refers to Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and also Homo antecessor.
That fits my assessment when I said that scientifically spoken it would be more convenient to confine "human" only to home Sapiens. These include all species mentioned in your list:
- homo Sapiens Sapiens (that will be us)
- homo Sapiens Heidelbergensis, homo Sapiens Rhodesiensis, homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis
- and may also include Homo antecessor.
Notice that homo Erectus and homo Habilis are not mentioned on the link.
This also applies to your second link, where it reads: "Most paleoanthropologists agree that Homo erectus and H. sapiens are distinct species".
I could agree with the assessments on both links.
The trend is however that humans are more than just the current dominate species of Earth and that other humans did in fact exist, they were just a different kinds of humans.
Leading up to us.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119411 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> No need to shout, turkey boy. Why would you assume (your interpretation of) scientific evidence is the only evidence there is? Is not recorded history evidence? If you have multiple accounts of an ancient flood where one family makes it through on a boat, is that not evidence of the event in question from history. Multiple accounts provide weight to the event in question? Are these not the ancients understanding of a event which predated their writings?
There is no need to shout because you won't and can't provide supporting evidence for Genesis either way.
Written accounts which vary greatly both in general and in detail are not evidence of a global catastrophe which has left no geological evidence. Local floods happen. The Noachian flood as described clearly did not.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119412 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> No need to shout, turkey boy. Why would you assume (your interpretation of) scientific evidence is the only evidence there is? Is not recorded history evidence? If you have multiple accounts of an ancient flood where one family makes it through on a boat, is that not evidence of the event in question from history. Multiple accounts provide weight to the event in question? Are these not the ancients understanding of a event which predated their writings?
An interpretation is not evidence.

The historical evidence for floods in some societies predates the biblical account of the flood and the biblical account is a monotheistic copy of previous polytheistic versions. Not all cultures have flood stories that mirror the biblical story. The stories from Chinese culture of the time refer to localized flooding when they mention flooding. All these stories do is reaffirm the fact that floods were an important part of ancient cultures and largely because they were centered in flood plains. Who would have guessed.

Repeating a story spread by commerce and other contact through different cultures does not make it true. The fact that it is a LATER Hebrew version that is archived in the Bible only weakens your case and does not strengthen it. And as I said, the story spread through cultural contact and ends where that contact does.

Further there is a large body of evidence that don't support a global flood and more evidence that indicates that such a flood isn't even possible. You add to that the questions that arise from the biblical narrative that creationists can't answer and simply ignore, you have an insurmountable hurdle to suggest this story is more than allegory.

Your assertions that science-minded people think the people would stupid because they didn't have the understanding of the world that many today do is just a record of your bias. No one outside of fundies and other science deniers have said that or made that claim. All that has been said is that based on their views of the world, member of ancient cultures were ignorant of the world around them. On a whole, they attributed unsupported, supernatural causes to all the phenomena they experienced.

BTW. If you are going to post someone else's words, it would be good form to state who it is and where you got it. Simply stating "not mine" adds a patina of questionable credibility.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119413 Aug 3, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>An interpretation is not evidence.
Agree. An interpretation is a conclusion.
The historical evidence for floods in some societies predates the biblical account of the flood and the biblical account is a monotheistic copy of previous polytheistic versions.
An interpretation is not evidence. Either is an assumption without evidence. Where is your evidence the biblical account was copied? Moses had sources. Educated in Egypt and spent time with Biblical God. Either or both could be a source.
Not all cultures have flood stories that mirror the biblical story.
And if they did you would argue collusion. Evidence can be rejected for any reason. Variations are rejected because they do not jibe in every detail. If the accounts are all the same then there is collusion. Its like finding two fingerprints at a crime scene and rejecting them both because they are not the same. Even if they are not the same, it is still evidence two different people were there at one time or another. In investigation evidence is not thrown out if one is seeking the truth.
And as I said, the story spread through cultural contact and ends where that contact does.
That is a theory in search of a fact.
Further there is a large body of evidence that don't support a global flood and more evidence that indicates that such a flood isn't even possible. You add to that the questions that arise from the biblical narrative that creationists can't answer and simply ignore, you have an insurmountable hurdle to suggest this story is more than allegory.
Creationist have answers. All you have to do is search their sites.
Your assertions that science-minded people think the people would stupid because they didn't have the understanding of the world that many today do is just a record of your bias.
That sentence does not make sense so i think you mean the moderns assume the ancients could not tell fact from fiction. I give the ancients, including the kings of Europe, the benefit of the doubt. You, on the other hand assume they are all wrong. Just like your camp assumed the David Kingdom was a credible as King Arthur and were proven wrong. Why don't you own up to your mistakes instead of lame attempts to shift blame?
No one outside of fundies and other science deniers have said that or made that claim. All that has been said is that based on their views of the world, member of ancient cultures were ignorant of the world around them. On a whole, they attributed unsupported, supernatural causes to all the phenomena they experienced.
Right and you know better with your metaphysical prejudices. Nothing supernatural at all places at all times. Do you believe in abiogenesis? Everything is here by accident or for no reason? Intelligence and life are by-products of non intelligence and non life? Where is the hard science in that? Where is the logic?
BTW. If you are going to post someone else's words, it would be good form to state who it is and where you got it. Simply stating "not mine" adds a patina of questionable credibility.
It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119414 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> No need to shout, turkey boy. Why would you assume (your interpretation of) scientific evidence is the only evidence there is? Is not recorded history evidence? If you have multiple accounts of an ancient flood where one family makes it through on a boat, is that not evidence of the event in question from history. Multiple accounts provide weight to the event in question? Are these not the ancients understanding of a event which predated their writings?
I didn't shout, I just used capitals because you apparently are not able to read properly when using underscore.

Also the historic evidence makes mishmash of your bronze age mythology stories.

No, I don't take evidence form mythology books.

I only accept scientific evidence.
Are you implying then that a worldwide flood would not leave any geological traces then?
Hence, I need geological evidence INDEED.

And if you are not able to deliver it, there WAS NO WORLDWIDE FLOOD. Just as simple.

Otherwise, it is just a myth from the many myths written in the bronze age by the many bronze age people. We have a bunch of books of these: Gilgamesh Epic, Upanishads, Rig Vedas, Greek Mythology etc.

Many of them even older than the bible.
All filled to the brim with "stories" and "accounts" of "ancients" who experienced all kinds of "events which predated their writings".

You are not relying on evidence but on revelation.

Hence the question again: WHERE is you EVIDENCE?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119415 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> An interpretation is not evidence. Either is an assumption without evidence. Where is your evidence the biblical account was copied?
Moses had sources. Educated in Egypt and spent time with Biblical God. Either or both could be a source.
There is an almost identical version of the flood in Gilgamesh Epic. Only the name Noah is not mentioned but Utnapishtim. It was on its turn probably copied from the older Atra-Hasis Epic. Both flood stories pre-date the biblical account. We also historically know that the Jews were in Babylonia, where both Epics originated. hence we have:
- 2 almost identical renditions of the biblical flood story in other bronze age mythology accounts
- those 2 versions pre-date the biblical one
- the writers of the biblical account, the Jews, were in Mesopotamia on a moment when the flood accounts of the 2 Epics already existed.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
And if they did you would argue collusion. Evidence can be rejected for any reason. Variations are rejected because they do not jibe in every detail. If the accounts are all the same then there is collusion. Its like finding two fingerprints at a crime scene and rejecting them both because they are not the same. Even if they are not the same, it is still evidence two different people were there at one time or another. In investigation evidence is not thrown out if one is seeking the truth.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Much word spaghetti. Your whole argument here relies on the presumption you made in the beginning "if they did...". They didn't. Hence, not all cultures have flood stories that mirror the biblical story. Period. Local floods happen all the time everywhere in all eras of planet earth. Of THOSE floods we have ABUNDANT geological evidence. When floods are severe and inundate all the land you know, for a bronze age mind this would appear to be a "worldwide" flood. Because it affects the WHOLE world HE knows. And its devastations would appeal to his emotions and mental experiences. He would think it were the wrath of god, punishing him for his mischief. That's how bronze age minds work. They lack scientific knowledge and everything from nature that causes pain, misery and disaster, MUST come from god.

[QUOTE who="lightbeamrider" ]<quoted text>
Just like your camp assumed the David Kingdom was a credible as King Arthur and were proven wrong. Why don't you own up to your mistakes instead of lame attempts to shift blame?
EXACTLY. The story from Arthur also comes from ancients who wrote stories that were known by all kings of Europe.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in abiogenesis? Everything is here by accident or for no reason? Intelligence and life are by-products of non intelligence and non life? Where is the hard science in that? Where is the logic?
"It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon."
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon.
If YOU are making a claim, YOU provide. Never heard of decent debate?
WHAT AN ARROGANCE: "I claim, YOU look for MY evidence".
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119416 Aug 3, 2014
Sorry, something went wrong with my previous post.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> An interpretation is not evidence. Either is an assumption without evidence. Where is your evidence the biblical account was copied?
Moses had sources. Educated in Egypt and spent time with Biblical God. Either or both could be a source.
There is an almost identical version of the flood in Gilgamesh Epic. Only the name Noah is not mentioned but Utnapishtim. It was on its turn probably copied from the older Atra-Hasis Epic. Both flood stories pre-date the biblical account. We also historically know that the Jews were in Babylonia, where both Epics originated. hence we have:
- 2 almost identical renditions of the biblical flood story in other bronze age mythology accounts
- those 2 versions pre-date the biblical one
- the writers of the biblical account, the Jews, were in Mesopotamia on a moment when the flood accounts of the 2 Epics already existed.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
And if they did you would argue collusion. Evidence can be rejected for any reason. Variations are rejected because they do not jibe in every detail. If the accounts are all the same then there is collusion. Its like finding two fingerprints at a crime scene and rejecting them both because they are not the same. Even if they are not the same, it is still evidence two different people were there at one time or another. In investigation evidence is not thrown out if one is seeking the truth.
Much word spaghetti. Your whole argument here relies on the presumption you made in the beginning "if they did...". They didn't. Hence, not all cultures have flood stories that mirror the biblical story. Period. Local floods happen all the time everywhere in all eras of planet earth. Of THOSE floods we have ABUNDANT geological evidence. When floods are severe and inundate all the land you know, for a bronze age mind this would appear to be a "worldwide" flood. Because it affects the WHOLE world HE knows. And its devastations would appeal to his emotions and mental experiences. He would think it were the wrath of god, punishing him for his mischief. That's how bronze age minds work. They lack scientific knowledge and everything from nature that causes pain, misery and disaster, MUST come from god.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like your camp assumed the David Kingdom was a credible as King Arthur and were proven wrong. Why don't you own up to your mistakes instead of lame attempts to shift blame?
EXACTLY. The story from Arthur also comes from ancients who wrote stories that were known by all kings of Europe.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in abiogenesis? Everything is here by accident or for no reason? Intelligence and life are by-products of non intelligence and non life? Where is the hard science in that? Where is the logic?
"It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon."
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon.
If YOU are making a claim, YOU provide. Never heard of decent debate?
WHAT AN ARROGANCE: "I claim, YOU look for MY evidence".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 2 min andet1987 4,060
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 7 min andet1987 13,734
Word Association (Mar '10) 8 min andet1987 22,600
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 9 min andet1987 84,056
lets play follow the word! (Jul '08) 10 min Brandiiiiiiii 39,829
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 10 min andet1987 49,915
First Word That Comes To Mind ....... (Apr '10) 10 min Brandiiiiiiii 13,171
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 13 min andet1987 17,671
True False Game (Jun '11) 16 min andet1987 15,589
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 27 min Brandiiiiiiii 27,698
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 3 hr david04 6,111
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 6 hr Sublime1 223,437
More from around the web